Excuse me, but is twitter a channel that I can tune into and then sit down and watch, with people talking and showing actual events (like, in the case of an election, the count being declared)? Somehow, I don't think you are comparing like with like.
There are huge changes in how news is being consumed. It is increasingly being obtained through social media and mobile devices. This is particularly apparent among the iPhone generation. Both Twitter and the BBC are sources of news. So yes, they are comparable.
I'm rather thankful the BBC isn't basing its news reporting on rumours. The purpose of a journalist and by proxy, a broadcaster is to report the facts. The fact that you have journalists who take rumours at face value or spin their own slant because of political ideology on a story is partially the reason why people distrust the media. The BBC is not perfect, I have seen examples where political ideology has shaped its news agenda and decisions, but I don't want rumours, rash reporting ("Sky News - Never Wrong For Long") and ideology embedded within a public service broadcaster or even a commercial one.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the BBC did report rumours on the night of the General Election. They were reporting from around 12am that Nigel Farage was on track to lose Thanet South. This happened throughout the night and they even continued reporting the rumours outside of the party UKIP held in Thanet several hours later.
There are huge changes in how news is being consumed. It is increasingly being obtained through social media and mobile devices. This is particularly apparent among the iPhone generation. Both Twitter and the BBC are sources of news. So yes, they are comparable.
According to twitter Tony Bennett had a heart attack the other week. According to the property news he had the flu. You can't rely on twitter for news
It is quite clearly run by an interest that is pro-Tory and anti-BBC which could cover a large number of individuals and organisations including the Daily Malicious.
There's no detailed information about polling survey sizes, margin of error, dates and methods of survey and the precise wording of the questions that were actually asked because that in itself can introduce bias.
Therefore, this is a crude and biased stitch-up by unscrupulous persons unknown and the poll is therefore a complete pile of THIS.
_Call_Me_Dave_
I cannot remember the exact seats but they were very slow on some of the declarations in the early hours of the morning.
This isn't true. In fact when the first declarations started coming through many pundit discussions were briskly interrupted in order to report the results. You have gone from several hours to very slow.:)
There were key swing seats which received no coverage at all.
What were these key swing seats? And what do you mean by coverage? No live camera at the count? No mention of the declaration at all...Nothing at all. Really!
The BBC were even incapable of reporting rumours such as Ed Balls losing in Morley and Outwood. The rumours were flying around for hours. Same with Thurrock a key UKIP target seat, rumours that they were 2nd/3rd for hours.
Again this isn't true. Both were mentioned as part of the discussion around the pundit table. In fact I remember them saying Ed Balls' deposit was looking very uncertain as I was starting to flag at the time and this made me make a fresh pot of coffee.:)
Also the pundits in the studio were using Twitter. Not only to make tweets but as direct contact with other reporters.
The coverage on Sky and Sky Arts was far far superior to the BBC's coverage.
Then I take it you didn't see all of the BBC's coverage then. Do you not think you may have missed the things you say didn't happen?
The problem with asking people these kinds of questions is that most people aren't knowledgable enough to be in a position to give an informed answer....
Exactly right. "Do you want to not have to spend £145.50 per year?" is always going to get a "yes" response.
I'd love to see a full referendum on this with every household receiving a copy of this document and a full and complete explanation of the pros and cons of all available choices.
There are huge changes in how news is being consumed. It is increasingly being obtained through social media and mobile devices. This is particularly apparent among the iPhone generation. Both Twitter and the BBC are sources of news. So yes, they are comparable.
No they really aren't. One is reliable and reports facts; the other is Twitter.
Instead of relying on the often grossly misleading and wrong Twitter, I went to the Yougov source document. The first question about the BBC, which sets the tone for all the others, is:
"Thinking about the licence fee and the services the BBC offers, do you think it does or does not offer good value for money"
The question is equivalent to asking a generic poll question on taxes, such as:
"Thinking about your Council Tax payments and the services your local Council offers, do you think it does or does not offer good value for money"
There is little doubt that a large majority of those polled would answer "No".
The only surprise about the BBC 'tax' poll is that as many as 38% think it does offer good value for money. It is an astonishing result - far better in terms of value for money than any other poll on a tax would result in.
Excellent news indeed for the BBC from such a poll result, except of course for the knockers.
Right, hands up I don't know how it all works but from my ignorant stand pint this is what I see.
BBC says with out TV listener they can't afford to make their shows. No advertising means they're screwed.
BBC sells A LOT of their shows world wide, plus their youtube BBC world wide services which do have advertising sponsorship.
BBC sells A LOT of merchandise. DR WHO, top gear, only fools and horses DVDS, plus the rights for DR WHO references on other shows such as the Big Bang theory or family guy etc.
BBC pays certain presenters an insane amount of money for a "public funded" station. If half that went to the shows they're really cashing in on like Dr who they'd not be in "such need"' from joe blogs.
When their old shows end up on UK TV GOLD, DAVE, etc. is it a one of buy out fee? Or a regular fee paid to them?
£150 a year is a lot when in my case you only really watch pointless. I mean come on BBC.
Exactly right. "Do you want to not have to spend £145.50 per year?" is always going to get a "yes" response.
I'd love to see a full referendum on this with every household receiving a copy of this document and a full and complete explanation of the pros and cons of all available choices.
What we'd lose is far more than what we'd gain.
No they really aren't. One is reliable and reports facts; the other is Twitter.
Let me know when the BBC get round to reporting it. It is newsworthy as there could be a potential by-election if Zac Goldsmith resigns and potentially stands as an indepedent/runs for mayor.
I actually feel the BBC has a major financial issue. They are wasting money on garbage much of the time and aren't producing a wide enough variety of programming.
BBC should be going out of their way to produce quality programmes that can be sold to USA, Canada, Australia and the rest of the world.
BBC constantly shows vapid, worthless shows like Bargain Hunt, even on Saturdays now.
BBC is a sorry excuse for a channel now. There used to be some very good shows on that channel but it is totally flat now. BBC Two used to be quite innovative and there used to be some good comedy and light arts shows on the channel. Now it shows ultra cheap shows and repeats all days and is basically a slightly lighter version of BBC Four at night.
Plus the BBC are shutting BBC Three as a linear channel instead of making the kind of shows that E4 have like My Mad Fat Diary that would be perfect for the youth audience BBC Three is aimed at.
Also, I grew up watching loads of great sport, movies and entertainment shows on BBC as well as children's programming.
BBC One has only a smattering of sports now, maybe understandable due to the move to subscription TV but then again, BBC IS a pay network! The days when Grandstand had fairly good events almost weekly are a distant memory. There are a lot of sporting events that get minimal coverage or could be built up to a level of popularity. Sports like basketball, ice hockey and maybe even speedway could benefit from BBC coverage in terms of domestic league coverage.
Children's shows have been banished to CBBC and CBeebies. There seems to be an awful lot of bias towards live action BBC made shows on CBBC although CBeebies has a bit more variety.
The BBC's Saturday night lineup on BBC One is pretty dreadful nowadays. The fact that numerous dull hour long gameshows are on just to advertise the lottery coverage is bad enough but having shows like The Voice and Casualty in there too just makes things worse. There are very few movies on BBC One now and most are late night offerings. I'm not going to be overly critical of Match of the Day but I miss the days when viewers in Scotland had Sportscene on a Saturday which included the best of the Match of the Day games as well. We just get the same English coverage nowadays with no Scottish footage at all on a Saturday night.
I grew up watching hundreds of top US shows on the BBC, well now they are virtually noexistant. Same with Aussie shows.
BBC Radio is pretty weak now too. Radio 1 was reaching too broad an audience according to the BBC, so they try to narrow it too far. Radio 2 is broadened, which is a good thing for listeners in the 30-45 bracket but it has ended up a Jekyll and Hyde station at times that fluctuates between modern music at one turn and playing vintage organ music at the next turn. My opinion is that Radio 6 should be utilsed further and made a little more mainstream as the real Radio 1.5 alternative while some of the quirky alternative programmes should definately be retained on top of this. Radio 2 could keep some of the slightly younger shows but keep on a distinct path instead of switching between being Radio 1.5 and Radio 2.5 or even Radio 4 Lite at times.
I have even suggested that the BBC sometimes seems to churn out crap to try to win the arguement they need more funding but that probably isn't the case and that it is just an enormous lack of imagination at the Corporation.
Right, hands up I don't know how it all works but from my ignorant stand pint this is what I see.
BBC says with out TV listener they can't afford to make their shows. No advertising means they're screwed.
BBC sells A LOT of their shows world wide, plus their youtube BBC world wide services which do have advertising sponsorship.
BBC sells A LOT of merchandise. DR WHO, top gear, only fools and horses DVDS, plus the rights for DR WHO references on other shows such as the Big Bang theory or family guy etc.
BBC pays certain presenters an insane amount of money for a "public funded" station. If half that went to the shows they're really cashing in on like Dr who they'd not be in "such need"' from joe blogs.
When their old shows end up on UK TV GOLD, DAVE, etc. is it a one of buy out fee? Or a regular fee paid to them?
£150 a year is a lot when in my case you only really watch pointless. I mean come on BBC.
The sales of merchanise etc doesn't see all the money go back to the BBC - typically it's a set fee + a percentage based on sales.
Most of the money that is raised that way goes into making new programming, or keeping the likes of Doctor Who on the air/allows it to have a bigger than average budget for the BBC.
The likes of presenters pay, most stories you see about it in the papers are utter rubbish - I've seen papers take the total income of someone who appears on the BBC as being his BBC pay. Ignoring the fact that the figure quoted was from his personal company which also had the income from his personal DVD sales, his stand up comedy tours, his personal (off screen) appearances and things like the money he made by writing books and newspaper articles.
Other cases have quoted "presenters fees" that included the payments the presenter received for part owning the rights to the show, or including royalties from the sales abroad.
It is also worth noting that typically the BBC will pay it's "stars" a lot less than commercial broadcasters will for the same level of work (and some of it's bigger names have commented about how they might get paid more for doing less than a week of commercial work where they have basically just acted, compared to what the BBC might pay them for several months work acting, writing and producing a show).
With regards to the likes of UK Gold, they'll be paying a fee that is based on several factors, the most common ones being:
The popularity of the show (the more popular/viewers it is expected to get the bigger the payment will tend to be).
How many times it's going to be shown.
How long the deal is for.
It is also worth noting that the BBC will not get to keep all of the money that is made that way, as the likes of actors, writers, composers will get a cut of it. This is because usually programmes are made with the broadcaster paying less to some of the people who make it in exchange for those people getting additional payments for repeats etc in the future. It sounds like a silly idea but it means that the risks are spread across both the broadcaster and everyone else involved - if the show tanks the broadcaster hasn't lost huge amounts of money, and if the show is successful the actors etc haven't lost huge amounts of money by selling their rights too cheaply.
It basically keeps the upfront cost of a show down massively, as a lot of the people involved only really get good money if it does well (and that "good money" might be spread over 20+ years of smaller payments).
This is a deal that is common across all broadcasters, and pretty much the standard in the industry for certain professions specifically because it does tend to work out reasonably well for all involved (as long as you don't let Hollywood get it's accountants involved*).
*The Film industry (especially in Hollywood) somehow never seems to have a film make a profit, at least as far as paying residuals to most actors/directors is concerned (a film may make 100 million the US alone, have cost less than 10 million to make, but never break even according to the studio).
This isn't true. In fact when the first declarations started coming through many pundit discussions were briskly interrupted in order to report the results. You have gone from several hours to very slow.:)
What were these key swing seats? And what do you mean by coverage? No live camera at the count? No mention of the declaration at all...Nothing at all. Really!
Again this isn't true. Both were mentioned as part of the discussion around the pundit table. In fact I remember them saying Ed Balls' deposit was looking very uncertain as I was starting to flag at the time and this made me make a fresh pot of coffee.:)
Also the pundits in the studio were using Twitter. Not only to make tweets but as direct contact with other reporters.
Then I take it you didn't see all of the BBC's coverage then. Do you not think you may have missed the things you say didn't happen?
It is pointless arguing about whether the coverage was satisfactory. Some people will love whatever the BBC churns out. With the BBC facing shortages of several hundred million pounds when the license fee is decriminalised and frozen, one thing is sure, and that is the 2020 General Election coverage will be even poorer
What were these key swing seats? And what do you mean by coverage? No live camera at the count? No mention of the declaration at all...Nothing at all. Really!
Then I take it you didn't see all of the BBC's coverage then. Do you not think you may have missed the things you say didn't happen?
Nuneaton declared very early (about 1am), and saw the Tories extend their lead there, even though it was one of the top Labour targets. Sky picked up on the significance of this immediately. The BBC pretty much ignored it, simply flashed up the "Con Hold" on the screen and carried on debating on how accurate the exit poll was and spending a lot of time on the SNP gains. They missed the significance of this very early indicator.
I recorded both the BBC and Sky election specials that night and still have them. Watching them in 30 minute segments, BBC and then Sky to see the differences in their "take" on what was happening is fascinating.
And I wonder how many of those people assume an ad funded BBC would have impact on the output of either the BBC or existing commercial channels.
And I would suspect.that a lot if people these days woukd say they didn't think it was good value because these days so many people don't see value in anything, and think everything should be free.
I agree. But we live in different times now. A decade or so ago the BBC was a force to reckon with. But with so much choice out there people no longer regard it as the Holy Grail it was once. Of course people like the BBC and don't want it to be closed down, but the way some posters behave is that the whole country are so anti-Tory and pro-BBC, that in reality that is no longer the case. The BBC is important, agreed. But our priorities have changed. Many prefer to choose their viewing, their entertainment packages themselves. The BBC DOES offer something for everyone some of the time, but very often you might have to wait a long time before you actually want to see something on the BBC.
I believe if the BBC went back to BBC One and BBC Two and concentrated on programming for those two channels, aswell as running a News Channel and Cbeebies, the public would re-engage with it. The programming is too thinly spread over too many channels that very often it appears that there isn't anythging on any of them. Of course, the exact same is true of ITV, C4 and C5 too. There simply isn't enough on the main channels to distinguish them from their digital channels.
So, people feel obliged to seek what they want to watch at times they want to watch it. The Licence Fee is becoming irrelevant to many households, simply because they don't use the BBC in the way they used to. The TV schedules are the same every day now and people can get more variety by using on-demand and suppliers like Netflix.
I realise some people believe the population see the BBC as more important than it is actually is, but we are not a socialist country. We are self serving. We see the value in the Health Service and Social Services and Education, but apart from that, things like TV can be provided by various broadcasters and it can provide people what they WANT to watch at times they can WATCH it. It isn't the same as worrying about what treatment your loved one will receive at an NHS hospital when they're rushed in.
I think most people are waiting to see what plans the Government will have for the BBC. I predict most will just accept the outcome and not bother about it again until the subject is brought up by the BBC themselves. If the BBC cries too loudly though, they might lose the sympathy of the public, because in reality, the public have just downloaded Game of Thrones on Now TV for £9,99 per month.
Just to pick up on one point in there. You say that people like to fond their own viewing from the massive choice now available, from the dozens of channels and stuff on the net. A presumably bewildering amount if content to choose from.
But then in the next breathe argue that a big part of the BBC's problem is that it spreafs itself too thinly.
I find it difficult to simultaneously accept that people are readily able to find stuff on the dozens if commercial channels available, but somehow struggle with a handful of BBC channels.
The sales of merchanise etc doesn't see all the money go back to the BBC - typically it's a set fee + a percentage based on sales.
Most of the money that is raised that way goes into making new programming, or keeping the likes of Doctor Who on the air/allows it to have a bigger than average budget for the BBC.
The likes of presenters pay, most stories you see about it in the papers are utter rubbish - I've seen papers take the total income of someone who appears on the BBC as being his BBC pay. Ignoring the fact that the figure quoted was from his personal company which also had the income from his personal DVD sales, his stand up comedy tours, his personal (off screen) appearances and things like the money he made by writing books and newspaper articles.
Other cases have quoted "presenters fees" that included the payments the presenter received for part owning the rights to the show, or including royalties from the sales abroad.
It is also worth noting that typically the BBC will pay it's "stars" a lot less than commercial broadcasters will for the same level of work (and some of it's bigger names have commented about how they might get paid more for doing less than a week of commercial work where they have basically just acted, compared to what the BBC might pay them for several months work acting, writing and producing a show).
With regards to the likes of UK Gold, they'll be paying a fee that is based on several factors, the most common ones being:
The popularity of the show (the more popular/viewers it is expected to get the bigger the payment will tend to be).
How many times it's going to be shown.
How long the deal is for.
It is also worth noting that the BBC will not get to keep all of the money that is made that way, as the likes of actors, writers, composers will get a cut of it. This is because usually programmes are made with the broadcaster paying less to some of the people who make it in exchange for those people getting additional payments for repeats etc in the future. It sounds like a silly idea but it means that the risks are spread across both the broadcaster and everyone else involved - if the show tanks the broadcaster hasn't lost huge amounts of money, and if the show is successful the actors etc haven't lost huge amounts of money by selling their rights too cheaply.
It basically keeps the upfront cost of a show down massively, as a lot of the people involved only really get good money if it does well (and that "good money" might be spread over 20+ years of smaller payments).
This is a deal that is common across all broadcasters, and pretty much the standard in the industry for certain professions specifically because it does tend to work out reasonably well for all involved (as long as you don't let Hollywood get it's accountants involved*).
*The Film industry (especially in Hollywood) somehow never seems to have a film make a profit, at least as far as paying residuals to most actors/directors is concerned (a film may make 100 million the US alone, have cost less than 10 million to make, but never break even according to the studio).
Thanks for the reply. Though I forgot to mention product placement now it's allowed plus you forgot to address the youtubes but I guess it's not a huge factor.
The main point I took from what you did say was the BBC do not see all the money as it's getting cuts from other people.
Sounds familiar. Why is that? Hm, can't think
Either way they're making MASSIVE earnings and as such they're spending hard on their "celebs" and producers. I agree with those who've said even Saturday has gone the way of day time TV. Personally would I begrudge adverts between the BBW's shows? No. After all the party political broadcast waffle didn't upset my antiques roadshowing
It is pointless arguing about whether the coverage was satisfactory. Some people will love whatever the BBC churns out. With the BBC facing shortages of several hundred million pounds when the license fee is decriminalised and frozen, one thing is sure, and that is the 2020 General Election coverage will be even poorer
It isn't a question of loving whatever the BBC churns out but asking a poster to further a post they made.
That you were unable to further your claim that the BBC did not report on key swing seats till several hours later is not my fault.
Forgive me for asking a few simple questions regarding your post.
Maybe don't post made up clap trap and you won't get found out by a few simple questions.
Thanks for the reply. Though I forgot to mention product placement now it's allowed plus you forgot to address the youtubes but I guess it's not a huge factor.
The main point I took from what you did say was the BBC do not see all the money as it's getting cuts from other people.
Sounds familiar. Why is that? Hm, can't think
Either way they're making MASSIVE earnings and as such they're spending hard on their "celebs" and producers. I agree with those who've said even Saturday has gone the way of day time TV. Personally would I begrudge adverts between the BBW's shows? No. After all the party political broadcast waffle didn't upset my antiques roadshowing
The cuts to other people are about the only way you can make any TV or film show, as otherwise the costs upfront will be huge for anything that anyone thinks might do well:)
If you consider that a of programmes are based on ideas that the creators have come up with and pitched to the broadcaster, and a lot of the actors etc may be willing to take a gamble on working cheaply because they think the show is good but will not want to sign away their rights to repeat fees (for most actors the likes of a few hundred pounds per year from dozens of different shows makes up a large part of their pension income).
They're not generally spending "large" on their celebs though.
IIRC Chris Evens is thought to be getting something like 5 million for a 3 year deal that includes the new Top Gear and his current radio show.
That is 1.6 million a year, of which much of it is probably coming from the projected overseas performance of TG and paid for by BBC:WW (probably with some clause that reduces the fee if it doesn't do well).
ITV on the otherhand is IIRC paying a bunch of it's "top talent" millions per year for things that have little or no long term or overseas interest and income.
The execs/producers again don't tend to get massive pay, certainly not compared to what they tend to get from commercial companies, as the BBC tends to pay at or under the commercial rate for many roles, and massively under the commercial rate for the top jobs (for example something like the top 5-10 people in management at the BBC combined get paid less than the top guy at some other commercial broadcasters).
Re youtube.
IIRC the average youtube income from adverts (which will tend to have to go through BBC:WW as the main BBC ins't allowed to make such income), is tiny, it adds to the income but not to a really noticeable degree as the payment per viewing may only be a fraction of a penny per view.
You have to get something like 250-500k+ views per video (and very regular video updates) to even start to be able to consider making a living off youtube as a single person with no major production overheads.
Product placement is a big no for the BBC as it stands, and even if the BBC went commercial and started doing it, it doesn't tend to bring in massive amounts of money (and tends to take it away from the advertisers budget in other areas).
Let me know when the BBC get round to reporting it. It is newsworthy as there could be a potential by-election if Zac Goldsmith resigns and potentially stands as an indepedent/runs for mayor.
It was mentioned on the Daily Politics show before PMQ's on Wednesday and in The Mirror a couple of days ago when discussing the new runway report.
I actually feel the BBC has a major financial issue. They are wasting money on garbage much of the time and aren't producing a wide enough variety of programming.
BBC should be going out of their way to produce quality programmes that can be sold to USA, Canada, Australia and the rest of the world.
BBC constantly shows vapid, worthless shows like Bargain Hunt, even on Saturdays now.
BBC is a sorry excuse for a channel now. There used to be some very good shows on that channel but it is totally flat now. BBC Two used to be quite innovative and there used to be some good comedy and light arts shows on the channel. Now it shows ultra cheap shows and repeats all days and is basically a slightly lighter version of BBC Four at night.
Plus the BBC are shutting BBC Three as a linear channel instead of making the kind of shows that E4 have like My Mad Fat Diary that would be perfect for the youth audience BBC Three is aimed at.
Also, I grew up watching loads of great sport, movies and entertainment shows on BBC as well as children's programming.
BBC One has only a smattering of sports now, maybe understandable due to the move to subscription TV but then again, BBC IS a pay network! The days when Grandstand had fairly good events almost weekly are a distant memory. There are a lot of sporting events that get minimal coverage or could be built up to a level of popularity. Sports like basketball, ice hockey and maybe even speedway could benefit from BBC coverage in terms of domestic league coverage.
Children's shows have been banished to CBBC and CBeebies. There seems to be an awful lot of bias towards live action BBC made shows on CBBC although CBeebies has a bit more variety.
The BBC's Saturday night lineup on BBC One is pretty dreadful nowadays. The fact that numerous dull hour long gameshows are on just to advertise the lottery coverage is bad enough but having shows like The Voice and Casualty in there too just makes things worse. There are very few movies on BBC One now and most are late night offerings. I'm not going to be overly critical of Match of the Day but I miss the days when viewers in Scotland had Sportscene on a Saturday which included the best of the Match of the Day games as well. We just get the same English coverage nowadays with no Scottish footage at all on a Saturday night.
I grew up watching hundreds of top US shows on the BBC, well now they are virtually noexistant. Same with Aussie shows.
BBC Radio is pretty weak now too. Radio 1 was reaching too broad an audience according to the BBC, so they try to narrow it too far. Radio 2 is broadened, which is a good thing for listeners in the 30-45 bracket but it has ended up a Jekyll and Hyde station at times that fluctuates between modern music at one turn and playing vintage organ music at the next turn. My opinion is that Radio 6 should be utilsed further and made a little more mainstream as the real Radio 1.5 alternative while some of the quirky alternative programmes should definately be retained on top of this. Radio 2 could keep some of the slightly younger shows but keep on a distinct path instead of switching between being Radio 1.5 and Radio 2.5 or even Radio 4 Lite at times.
I have even suggested that the BBC sometimes seems to churn out crap to try to win the arguement they need more funding but that probably isn't the case and that it is just an enormous lack of imagination at the Corporation.
We are in the midst of the Summer Season. No? Would it not be fairer to judge Autumn, Winter and Spring output?
I'm sorry I'm not convinced. I can't look it as poor BBC.Plus the fact they assume anyone with a TV is watching their stuff is assumptive. If one doesn't watch the BBC why should they pay the TV licence? Nope. Sorry no time for them after everything's come out.
I'm sorry I'm not convinced. I can't look it as poor BBC.Plus the fact they assume anyone with a TV is watching their stuff is assumptive. If one doesn't watch the BBC why should they pay the TV licence? Nope. Sorry no time for them after everything's come out.
Same view regarding the commercial channels you don't watch but still pay for?
Nuneaton declared very early (about 1am), and saw the Tories extend their lead there, even though it was one of the top Labour targets. Sky picked up on the significance of this immediately. The BBC pretty much ignored it, simply flashed up the "Con Hold" on the screen and carried on debating on how accurate the exit poll was and spending a lot of time on the SNP gains. They missed the significance of this very early indicator.
I recorded both the BBC and Sky election specials that night and still have them. Watching them in 30 minute segments, BBC and then Sky to see the differences in their "take" on what was happening is fascinating.
There is a difference to focusing on a certain strand,or strands, at certain parts during the coverage than not reporting till several hours later.
Im sure all the broadcasters focused on different points at different times during the night. It isn't as if the SNP were not a major part of the election and the election build up. Just as all broadcasters will have different takes on the incoming results. Im sure there are endless 'they said this whilst the other was saying that' between all the different broadcasters. That's the nature of it. It is swings and roundabouts.
I'm sorry I'm not convinced. I can't look it as poor BBC.Plus the fact they assume anyone with a TV is watching their stuff is assumptive. If one doesn't watch the BBC why should they pay the TV licence? Nope. Sorry no time for them after everything's come out.
Who's they?
If you mean the BBC then you have no clue as to how the TV licence operates.
Audience research, ie analysis of what people actually do rather than what they say to score points, regularly return figures that each week of well over 90% of people choose the BBC.
97 per cent of the UK population choose to spend an average of over 19 hours a week consuming BBC services across TV, Radio and Online.
Comments
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the BBC did report rumours on the night of the General Election. They were reporting from around 12am that Nigel Farage was on track to lose Thanet South. This happened throughout the night and they even continued reporting the rumours outside of the party UKIP held in Thanet several hours later.
According to twitter Tony Bennett had a heart attack the other week. According to the property news he had the flu. You can't rely on twitter for news
Here is a picture of a Carp: http://www.bromdon-fishing-pools.co.uk/carp_fishing.png
It is relevant for two reasons:
1. Something decidedly fishy is going on;
2. Carp is an anagram of crap which this whole poll is.
BritainElects has no form and no background - see http://britainelects.com/
It is quite clearly run by an interest that is pro-Tory and anti-BBC which could cover a large number of individuals and organisations including the Daily Malicious.
There's no detailed information about polling survey sizes, margin of error, dates and methods of survey and the precise wording of the questions that were actually asked because that in itself can introduce bias.
Therefore, this is a crude and biased stitch-up by unscrupulous persons unknown and the poll is therefore a complete pile of THIS.
This isn't true. In fact when the first declarations started coming through many pundit discussions were briskly interrupted in order to report the results. You have gone from several hours to very slow.:)
What were these key swing seats? And what do you mean by coverage? No live camera at the count? No mention of the declaration at all...Nothing at all. Really!
Again this isn't true. Both were mentioned as part of the discussion around the pundit table. In fact I remember them saying Ed Balls' deposit was looking very uncertain as I was starting to flag at the time and this made me make a fresh pot of coffee.:)
Also the pundits in the studio were using Twitter. Not only to make tweets but as direct contact with other reporters.
Then I take it you didn't see all of the BBC's coverage then. Do you not think you may have missed the things you say didn't happen?
I'd love to see a full referendum on this with every household receiving a copy of this document and a full and complete explanation of the pros and cons of all available choices.
What we'd lose is far more than what we'd gain.
No they really aren't. One is reliable and reports facts; the other is Twitter.
The what-now?
Instead of relying on the often grossly misleading and wrong Twitter, I went to the Yougov source document. The first question about the BBC, which sets the tone for all the others, is:
"Thinking about the licence fee and the services the BBC offers, do you think it does or does not offer good value for money"
The question is equivalent to asking a generic poll question on taxes, such as:
"Thinking about your Council Tax payments and the services your local Council offers, do you think it does or does not offer good value for money"
There is little doubt that a large majority of those polled would answer "No".
The only surprise about the BBC 'tax' poll is that as many as 38% think it does offer good value for money. It is an astonishing result - far better in terms of value for money than any other poll on a tax would result in.
Excellent news indeed for the BBC from such a poll result, except of course for the knockers.
BBC says with out TV listener they can't afford to make their shows. No advertising means they're screwed.
BBC sells A LOT of their shows world wide, plus their youtube BBC world wide services which do have advertising sponsorship.
BBC sells A LOT of merchandise. DR WHO, top gear, only fools and horses DVDS, plus the rights for DR WHO references on other shows such as the Big Bang theory or family guy etc.
BBC pays certain presenters an insane amount of money for a "public funded" station. If half that went to the shows they're really cashing in on like Dr who they'd not be in "such need"' from joe blogs.
When their old shows end up on UK TV GOLD, DAVE, etc. is it a one of buy out fee? Or a regular fee paid to them?
£150 a year is a lot when in my case you only really watch pointless. I mean come on BBC.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/616743958912311296
Let me know when the BBC get round to reporting it. It is newsworthy as there could be a potential by-election if Zac Goldsmith resigns and potentially stands as an indepedent/runs for mayor.
BBC should be going out of their way to produce quality programmes that can be sold to USA, Canada, Australia and the rest of the world.
BBC constantly shows vapid, worthless shows like Bargain Hunt, even on Saturdays now.
BBC is a sorry excuse for a channel now. There used to be some very good shows on that channel but it is totally flat now. BBC Two used to be quite innovative and there used to be some good comedy and light arts shows on the channel. Now it shows ultra cheap shows and repeats all days and is basically a slightly lighter version of BBC Four at night.
Plus the BBC are shutting BBC Three as a linear channel instead of making the kind of shows that E4 have like My Mad Fat Diary that would be perfect for the youth audience BBC Three is aimed at.
Also, I grew up watching loads of great sport, movies and entertainment shows on BBC as well as children's programming.
BBC One has only a smattering of sports now, maybe understandable due to the move to subscription TV but then again, BBC IS a pay network! The days when Grandstand had fairly good events almost weekly are a distant memory. There are a lot of sporting events that get minimal coverage or could be built up to a level of popularity. Sports like basketball, ice hockey and maybe even speedway could benefit from BBC coverage in terms of domestic league coverage.
Children's shows have been banished to CBBC and CBeebies. There seems to be an awful lot of bias towards live action BBC made shows on CBBC although CBeebies has a bit more variety.
The BBC's Saturday night lineup on BBC One is pretty dreadful nowadays. The fact that numerous dull hour long gameshows are on just to advertise the lottery coverage is bad enough but having shows like The Voice and Casualty in there too just makes things worse. There are very few movies on BBC One now and most are late night offerings. I'm not going to be overly critical of Match of the Day but I miss the days when viewers in Scotland had Sportscene on a Saturday which included the best of the Match of the Day games as well. We just get the same English coverage nowadays with no Scottish footage at all on a Saturday night.
I grew up watching hundreds of top US shows on the BBC, well now they are virtually noexistant. Same with Aussie shows.
BBC Radio is pretty weak now too. Radio 1 was reaching too broad an audience according to the BBC, so they try to narrow it too far. Radio 2 is broadened, which is a good thing for listeners in the 30-45 bracket but it has ended up a Jekyll and Hyde station at times that fluctuates between modern music at one turn and playing vintage organ music at the next turn. My opinion is that Radio 6 should be utilsed further and made a little more mainstream as the real Radio 1.5 alternative while some of the quirky alternative programmes should definately be retained on top of this. Radio 2 could keep some of the slightly younger shows but keep on a distinct path instead of switching between being Radio 1.5 and Radio 2.5 or even Radio 4 Lite at times.
I have even suggested that the BBC sometimes seems to churn out crap to try to win the arguement they need more funding but that probably isn't the case and that it is just an enormous lack of imagination at the Corporation.
The sales of merchanise etc doesn't see all the money go back to the BBC - typically it's a set fee + a percentage based on sales.
Most of the money that is raised that way goes into making new programming, or keeping the likes of Doctor Who on the air/allows it to have a bigger than average budget for the BBC.
The likes of presenters pay, most stories you see about it in the papers are utter rubbish - I've seen papers take the total income of someone who appears on the BBC as being his BBC pay. Ignoring the fact that the figure quoted was from his personal company which also had the income from his personal DVD sales, his stand up comedy tours, his personal (off screen) appearances and things like the money he made by writing books and newspaper articles.
Other cases have quoted "presenters fees" that included the payments the presenter received for part owning the rights to the show, or including royalties from the sales abroad.
It is also worth noting that typically the BBC will pay it's "stars" a lot less than commercial broadcasters will for the same level of work (and some of it's bigger names have commented about how they might get paid more for doing less than a week of commercial work where they have basically just acted, compared to what the BBC might pay them for several months work acting, writing and producing a show).
With regards to the likes of UK Gold, they'll be paying a fee that is based on several factors, the most common ones being:
The popularity of the show (the more popular/viewers it is expected to get the bigger the payment will tend to be).
How many times it's going to be shown.
How long the deal is for.
It is also worth noting that the BBC will not get to keep all of the money that is made that way, as the likes of actors, writers, composers will get a cut of it. This is because usually programmes are made with the broadcaster paying less to some of the people who make it in exchange for those people getting additional payments for repeats etc in the future. It sounds like a silly idea but it means that the risks are spread across both the broadcaster and everyone else involved - if the show tanks the broadcaster hasn't lost huge amounts of money, and if the show is successful the actors etc haven't lost huge amounts of money by selling their rights too cheaply.
It basically keeps the upfront cost of a show down massively, as a lot of the people involved only really get good money if it does well (and that "good money" might be spread over 20+ years of smaller payments).
This is a deal that is common across all broadcasters, and pretty much the standard in the industry for certain professions specifically because it does tend to work out reasonably well for all involved (as long as you don't let Hollywood get it's accountants involved*).
*The Film industry (especially in Hollywood) somehow never seems to have a film make a profit, at least as far as paying residuals to most actors/directors is concerned (a film may make 100 million the US alone, have cost less than 10 million to make, but never break even according to the studio).
Nuneaton declared very early (about 1am), and saw the Tories extend their lead there, even though it was one of the top Labour targets. Sky picked up on the significance of this immediately. The BBC pretty much ignored it, simply flashed up the "Con Hold" on the screen and carried on debating on how accurate the exit poll was and spending a lot of time on the SNP gains. They missed the significance of this very early indicator.
I recorded both the BBC and Sky election specials that night and still have them. Watching them in 30 minute segments, BBC and then Sky to see the differences in their "take" on what was happening is fascinating.
Since when was 37% a majority?
And I wonder how many of those people assume an ad funded BBC would have impact on the output of either the BBC or existing commercial channels.
And I would suspect.that a lot if people these days woukd say they didn't think it was good value because these days so many people don't see value in anything, and think everything should be free.
Just to pick up on one point in there. You say that people like to fond their own viewing from the massive choice now available, from the dozens of channels and stuff on the net. A presumably bewildering amount if content to choose from.
But then in the next breathe argue that a big part of the BBC's problem is that it spreafs itself too thinly.
I find it difficult to simultaneously accept that people are readily able to find stuff on the dozens if commercial channels available, but somehow struggle with a handful of BBC channels.
Thanks for the reply. Though I forgot to mention product placement now it's allowed plus you forgot to address the youtubes but I guess it's not a huge factor.
The main point I took from what you did say was the BBC do not see all the money as it's getting cuts from other people.
Sounds familiar. Why is that? Hm, can't think
Either way they're making MASSIVE earnings and as such they're spending hard on their "celebs" and producers. I agree with those who've said even Saturday has gone the way of day time TV. Personally would I begrudge adverts between the BBW's shows? No. After all the party political broadcast waffle didn't upset my antiques roadshowing
That's not true.
For a start according to the link more people want the BBC to be funded by the current licence or taxation than by advertising.
By the way the percentages of that poll don't even add up to 100%...in no way does this imply you are not all there.
It isn't a question of loving whatever the BBC churns out but asking a poster to further a post they made.
That you were unable to further your claim that the BBC did not report on key swing seats till several hours later is not my fault.
Forgive me for asking a few simple questions regarding your post.
Maybe don't post made up clap trap and you won't get found out by a few simple questions.
The cuts to other people are about the only way you can make any TV or film show, as otherwise the costs upfront will be huge for anything that anyone thinks might do well:)
If you consider that a of programmes are based on ideas that the creators have come up with and pitched to the broadcaster, and a lot of the actors etc may be willing to take a gamble on working cheaply because they think the show is good but will not want to sign away their rights to repeat fees (for most actors the likes of a few hundred pounds per year from dozens of different shows makes up a large part of their pension income).
They're not generally spending "large" on their celebs though.
IIRC Chris Evens is thought to be getting something like 5 million for a 3 year deal that includes the new Top Gear and his current radio show.
That is 1.6 million a year, of which much of it is probably coming from the projected overseas performance of TG and paid for by BBC:WW (probably with some clause that reduces the fee if it doesn't do well).
ITV on the otherhand is IIRC paying a bunch of it's "top talent" millions per year for things that have little or no long term or overseas interest and income.
The execs/producers again don't tend to get massive pay, certainly not compared to what they tend to get from commercial companies, as the BBC tends to pay at or under the commercial rate for many roles, and massively under the commercial rate for the top jobs (for example something like the top 5-10 people in management at the BBC combined get paid less than the top guy at some other commercial broadcasters).
Re youtube.
IIRC the average youtube income from adverts (which will tend to have to go through BBC:WW as the main BBC ins't allowed to make such income), is tiny, it adds to the income but not to a really noticeable degree as the payment per viewing may only be a fraction of a penny per view.
You have to get something like 250-500k+ views per video (and very regular video updates) to even start to be able to consider making a living off youtube as a single person with no major production overheads.
Product placement is a big no for the BBC as it stands, and even if the BBC went commercial and started doing it, it doesn't tend to bring in massive amounts of money (and tends to take it away from the advertisers budget in other areas).
It was mentioned on the Daily Politics show before PMQ's on Wednesday and in The Mirror a couple of days ago when discussing the new runway report.
We are in the midst of the Summer Season. No? Would it not be fairer to judge Autumn, Winter and Spring output?
Same view regarding the commercial channels you don't watch but still pay for?
There is a difference to focusing on a certain strand,or strands, at certain parts during the coverage than not reporting till several hours later.
Im sure all the broadcasters focused on different points at different times during the night. It isn't as if the SNP were not a major part of the election and the election build up. Just as all broadcasters will have different takes on the incoming results. Im sure there are endless 'they said this whilst the other was saying that' between all the different broadcasters. That's the nature of it. It is swings and roundabouts.
Who's they?
If you mean the BBC then you have no clue as to how the TV licence operates.
Audience research, ie analysis of what people actually do rather than what they say to score points, regularly return figures that each week of well over 90% of people choose the BBC.
Read all about it.