Not practical? why, seems common sense to me, It's the BBC saying oh look what's happening to us because of the cuts oh please the BBC should get a grip.

But there have to be cuts. Better to cut one superfluous presenter from a duo on BBC News rather than a programme.

Because the two channels serve completely different demographics for one.


Well it's not.

Actually, tell you what. If you look at the schedule these days, anywhere up to 1pm could easily be shared with other channels. CBBC up to about 9am, CBeebies up to 12pm, and the News Channel from 12pm until 1pm with The Daily Politics and GMT.

Add to this the days when PMQs and other Parliamentary coverage takes place, and there are days when shared output could last well into the afternoon.

I don't know whether the BBC has leaked this in a bid to get people's backs up and fight for BBC2 daytime programming, whether the Daily Mail is just flying a kite and seeing how far it goes, or whether it's a pile of balls, but actually, it could make some sense. It's always baffled me, for example, why CBeebies on BBC2 shows completely different programming to the CBeebies channel itself.

Even in the worst case scenario, where the News Channel takes over until 6pm/7pm, daytime programming would still be offered by BBC1 until 3.30pm. Simulcasting CBBC (probably already happens, haven't watched it in years) is another route to save cash.

In an era of DSO there is an argument that there is no point in simulcasting any more - people will have the choice of all these channels - but you could argue most people, especially older viewers, will stick with the same four/five (at best) channels no matter what, so it would provide a way into the other BBC channels.

So costs saved which can be used to plug a gap, and perhaps even invest in more important programming, either at peak hours or specialist programming you can't get from any other broadcaster? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Looks like the BBC are taking a step backwards with this idea, before we know it Ceefax and the Test Card 'F' will return to BBC TWO daytime.

If the BBC want to cut costs then why not open up programming from say BBC FOUR, I'm sure repeats of like 'The Secret Life of Motorways' and other documentaries can be shown during the day. I'm not sure on BBC three programming though as I can not see BBC TWO showing 'Snog, Marry, Avoid?' at 2 in the afternoon, can you?

Probably CBBC on weekday afternoons will leave BBC one and move over to BBC TWO. Saying that after DSO there will be no purpose for CBBC to remain on either BBC one and BBC TWO as in theory everyone will have access to the CBBC Channel.

A lot of people are saying that it's 'cheap' to show archive programmes. While it's cheaper (and quicker) than commissioning a new programme it really isn't easy. Based on my experiences as an Ingest and QC OP this would be the stages on getting an older programme to air:

1) Finding a decent copy of the original (not as easy as it sounds)
2) Dubbing it onto a modern format (Digibeta, HDCAM SR or a MJPEG file)
3) Post Production to get the video and audio quality up to modern standards. Could be a very long and expensive job.
4) Re edit to either add or remove breaks for advertising
5) A full Quality Assessment
6) Additional audio languages, subtitling and possibly sign language
7) Repeat for different video standards (HD, 525i etc)

This is missing out rights management, copyright, performer and music royalties plus many other stages. If the original copy is 16mm or 32mm film or stored on an obscure tape format that complicates things even further. If it's an old film then the BBFC rating will have changed and a new rating will have to be awarded.

So it might not be a runner at all IF the cost of such imported material is greater than the cost of home-grown (i.e. BBC-funded) material (regardless as to your suppositions about them wanting the airtime)

And as there are restrictions on the amount of imported programming that the BBC broadcasts, even 3 hours a day would be a significant amount of programming over the year.

Stuff shown almost daily such as .......


a very mature addition to the discussion.


A possibility .... for ONE current scheduling scenario at the moment.


Rather than trotting out a programme name without properly understanding what it was about, why not concentrate on these recent BBC Three programmes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/features/dan...asures-season/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5n81

Like you haven't come across them - anything with food. Delia Smith, Nigella Lawson, the list is endless. Great British Food Revival - how much more of this drivel do we need? And the fact that Masterchef has shifted across to BBC1 shows how much the BBC are dumbing down these days.

And now we're back to disagreeing again, I've cancelled our runaway wedding to Gretna Green


Yes, all of those, too.

And programmes such as "madagasgar" and "Ancient Britain" "and "Human Planet" show they are NOT!






What's wrong with them? Isn't this the very essence of PSB? and aimed at a young audience too?

Are you not young by any chance?

I would not describe either Delia Smith or Nigella Lawson as a random Z-list celeb though, neither do their programmes feature them.

.
Ah, Michel Roux - another one of your Z-list celebs? Or perhaps you don't like programmes about food (although, rather surprisingly, others do it would seem).


As much as the audience wants, even if it is obviously not to your taste. BTW, did you watch all of Michel Roux's Service?


Has it dumbed down from its BBC2 days and its earlier BBC 1 outing last year? I gather that there has been some strong reaction to the changed format (I don't watch so i cannot comment directly).


Phew, that's a lucky escape ......




So are you saying that those programmes have no redeeming factors and were not worthy PSB aimed at an audience that is likely to be watching BBC Three?

Runaway Wedding to Gretna Green sounds like it has the makings of a BBC2 daytime series

I'm saying there doesn't have to be so much of it. The schedules rely on cooking and similar shows far too much.


Yeah, every last second(!)


I don't watch it in full, maybe the odd bit here and there on a clip I see, but I'm saying the BBC has dumbed down by moving a BBC2 show to its prime channel.


I'm saying when cuts need to be made, these can go first. If times get better, then they can venture out.

Maybe they could revert to scheduling considerably composed of older films, which don't insult the average viewer's intelligence.

Because they're not aimed at you!

That's not fair.

Too much reliance? At maybe 30-45 mins a night over maybe three (or maybe four) nights a week in a full schedule??




Well, IF you had, then you would have seen some good TV fronted by Michel Roux that was less about cooking and more about the front-of-house service industry. A well-received series that was interesting and informative that proves that not all shows fronted by cooks/chefs are the same.


So i n what way has it been dumbed down? Or are you suggesting that simply moving channels is part of that process?



So you have not watched them and seem to know little about them - they are the essence of PSB aimed squarely at the BBC Three audience demograph, featuring subject matter that is entirely relevant to that demograph. And yet you feel that they should be the first to go.

Just because you don't like the subject matter or have no interest does not automatically mean that the programmes cease to have any relevance to the viewers in the target age range or group.

I've already suggested one example of a BBC3 show, which isn't something I watch, that could go in the 9pm slot. There'd be more that could come from 3 and 4 to go onto 1 and 2.

something like Junior Doctors, could even sit in on of the BBCs 8pm slots, which need a little more variety.

That said typing that, is Holby City and Junoir Doctors, really variety?

Correct. You could get rid of at least half by bringing in programmes from BBC3/4.


If it's so good then keep that but dump some of the endless cookery shows that are the same.


Correct.

One's a soap, one's a documentary, so it's a start. Better than endless lots of the same.

it is medical however, so its not a million miles away.

Well, i think you're being unfair.

My teenage daughter's love BBC3 - would you like to argue with them about the loss of their favorite programmes?

Cuts have to be made. If we lost 3 and 4, we'd have to compromise on what goes on BBC1 and 2. I've lost programmes that are my favourites.

Not one that I watch, but a lot of people have recently lost Lark Rise to Candleford. You just deal with it.

Well, i value my teenage daughters more than i do you, so let's remove YOUR favourite programmes instead!

Anyway, 3 and 4 aren't going anywhere. The simulcast on BBC 2 will, i'm sure, cope with that dilemma.

Seriously though, the only reason why "cuts have to be made" is at the bequest of the LIB/Cons and Rupert Murdoch.

For which the License Payer pays the same and gets less.

mikw even you know the BBC is not about how one single persons.but your devoation to your daughteers is admirable.

cuts should be to everyone, inculding your teenage daughters