Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

BBC concerns over Doctor Who - Daily Mail


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-05-2013, 00:47
Ray_Smith
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,328

Apologies if this has been mentioned in another thread...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...BBC-urged.html

A Beeb source says: ‘The 50th anniversary episode seems a good opportunity for him [Moffat] to bow out. Either way, something dramatic needs to take place to improve ratings.’
Interesting if true (it is the Daily Mail, though).
Ray_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-05-2013, 00:48
CD93
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 10,448
10 million or the axe.

Mail thinking.
CD93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 00:51
Ray_Smith
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,328
The BBC got rid of 'Grange Hill', 'Top of the Pops', even 'Last of the Boring Wine'.... so anything is possible. 2014 could be the last series - assuming the ratings continue to fall. No more Doctor Who! How will fans react to this?!!!!
Ray_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 00:53
adams66
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 1,955
Typical Daily Mail BBC bashing. Once timeshifted viewers are taken into account the facts are that ratings are much the same as they have been since Doctor Who returned. There is a slight downward shift in ratings across all TV programmes, but the facts are that Doctor Who is doing just fine ratings wise.
adams66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 00:55
Ray_Smith
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,328
A new Doctor - (new actor) - would spice up the ratings. I'm sure the BBC have given that some thought.
Ray_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 00:59
JohnnyForget
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,421
Despite allegedly falling ratings, Doctor Who is a money making franchise for the BBC, and they would be fools to cancel it.
JohnnyForget is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 01:04
Dr. Linus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Teenage Wasteland
Posts: 5,353
"The BBC claims the show has eight million viewers, but this is still well down on the 10 million the show received when it was relaunched in 2005."

ARGH. So frustrating. First of all, the BBC isn't "claiming" it has eight million viewers, it does. The Bells of St. John got 8.4 million just six weeks ago, and Asylum of the Daleks also got over 8 million at the beginning of this series. These are facts, not claims.

And the 10 million figure is for Rose, the very first episode of the new series, and Series 1 took an inevitable massive nosedive in the ratings after that to around 6-7 for every other episode, which is less than the show's getting now.

ARGH. Daily Mail. Not even good for toilet paper, I wouldn't dirty my backside with it.
Dr. Linus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 01:10
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 14,120
1. The Daily Mail is owned by ITN
2. There is no chance charging for news websites in the UK will work while bbc.co.uk is there.
3. As a result of 1 & 2, the Daily Mail publishes negative stories about the BBC every day, to the point where it's become a running joke.

This is a non story. So, this will be a 15 page thread by this time tomorrow, no doubt.
JCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 01:16
Dr Thete
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 464
Apologies if this has been mentioned in another thread...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...BBC-urged.html



Interesting if true (it is the Daily Mail, though).
Of course it isn't true.

Then only supposed BBC source quoted is unnamed and uninformed. Odds are, from Wootton, as someone working for the Daily Mail, it could be entirely made up. If not, all he would actually need is anyone from the BBC (literally anyone) to say those words. Classic lazy tabloid moronic click bait.

Wootton, as with most media hacks, is still living in the 1980s and can only see the Day One BBC One ratings count, thus his apparent surprise that the BBC can see 8 million viewers rather than 4.6 million. No doubt he thinks PVRs and iPlayer are devilry and witchcraft (which he has in common with some fans, sadly).

That said, he's not beyond twisting the few ratings facts he does understand in order to make a 'story'. Sure, the show did break 10 million (in final ratings) in its first year (counting BBC One only). Once. Most of the time since it's averaged ratings between 7 and 8 million, or somewhat higher if we count total reach. And that's still the case.

The only truly honest thing in that article is the only actual verifiable BBC quote:

The show has the highest audience share of all dramas on any channel this year and is in the top three most requested shows on iPlayer.
The only people who will think there is any truth in that story are those who want it to be true. But then that's the Daily Mail article criteria in a nutshell. Bugger the truth, tell people the things they want to believe.
Dr Thete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 01:21
Dr Thete
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 464
1. The Daily Mail is owned by ITN
No it isn't. It's owned outright by DMGT, who have only a 20% stake in ITN. Both via subsidiaries.
Dr Thete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 01:26
Dr Thete
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 464
"The BBC claims the show has eight million viewers, but this is still well down on the 10 million the show received when it was relaunched in 2005."

ARGH. So frustrating. First of all, the BBC isn't "claiming" it has eight million viewers, it does. The Bells of St. John got 8.4 million just six weeks ago, and Asylum of the Daleks also got over 8 million at the beginning of this series. These are facts, not claims.
It's highly likely that every episode this run (and of Series Seven as a whole) will have garnered at least 8 million plus in weekly reach.

Beyond the weekly reach those figures (from people catching up via PVR and iPlayer past the seven day mark) those figures will be higher still. Which is why focusing on the rough BBC One day one count is so silly.
Dr Thete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 01:48
Dr. Linus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Teenage Wasteland
Posts: 5,353
It's highly likely that every episode this run (and of Series Seven as a whole) will have garnered at least 8 million plus in weekly reach.

Beyond the weekly reach those figures (from people catching up via PVR and iPlayer past the seven day mark) those figures will be higher still. Which is why focusing on the rough BBC One day one count is so silly.
Indeed. It's well known even outside of the fandom that Doctor Who gets crazy timeshifts. This series it's been getting pretty much 2m an episode, and The Snowmen got the highest timeshifts of all time - of any programme, that is. The report is utter crap.
Dr. Linus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 01:54
Pyramidbread
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Frescho FastTrack
Posts: 9,146
"The BBC claims the show has eight million viewers, but this is still well down on the 10 million the show received when it was relaunched in 2005."

ARGH. So frustrating. First of all, the BBC isn't "claiming" it has eight million viewers, it does. The Bells of St. John got 8.4 million just six weeks ago, and Asylum of the Daleks also got over 8 million at the beginning of this series. These are facts, not claims.

And the 10 million figure is for Rose, the very first episode of the new series, and Series 1 took an inevitable massive nosedive in the ratings after that to around 6-7 for every other episode, which is less than the show's getting now.

ARGH. Daily Mail. Not even good for toilet paper, I wouldn't dirty my backside with it.
Plus all ratings have generally gone down since 2005, with the digital switchover and on demand TV.
Pyramidbread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 01:55
Sophie ~Oohie~
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,528
Think positive guys - at least they didn't make up a sex scandal with the writers this time.
Sophie ~Oohie~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 06:32
GDK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 2,759
The function of all daily newspapers is to make money for their proprietors and push certain political views. Their readers usually want stories that only confirm what they already believe. There's no requirement for balance or impartiality.

The BBC is required to be impartial and balanced. It's also supposed to educate and entertain.

Enough said, really.
GDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 07:24
allen_who
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,945
Every single series of dr who ive seen going back to the seventies has had good stories and bad stories.. its the same now as it always has been... the bbc are unpredictable but I doubt they would undermine the show in such an important year... also this business of bowing at after the anniversary ep... hmmm the christmas special has already been confirmed by moff
allen_who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 07:33
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 58,587
Typical Daily Mail BBC bashing. Once timeshifted viewers are taken into account the facts are that ratings are much the same as they have been since Doctor Who returned. There is a slight downward shift in ratings across all TV programmes, but the facts are that Doctor Who is doing just fine ratings wise.
Indeed - typical Mail reporting - use selective figures such as the lower overnights, and conveniently ignore the timeshifts

Add to that a "BBC source" who could be just about anybody, not necessarily someone connected with teh show or even connected with programme production or commissioning (such as a cleaner, car part attendant, or canteen assistant).
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 07:49
FATCHOPS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: York
Posts: 592
Due to the unique way the BBC is funded technically we could all be classes as BBC sources. We stump up the cash! Therefore he can write what he thinks and claim it as coming from a BBC source.
FATCHOPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 07:59
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 58,587
Very true.

The other possibility is that the reporter simply made up that quote, knowing that a source would never need to be named.
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 08:04
Muttley76
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: I wear a Stetson now...
Posts: 89,704
Well that little piece is a load of crap. I guess thats what happens when someone who can't count writes a piece on ratings.
Muttley76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 08:33
hardylane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,910
Screw ratings. Dr Who is a still a flagship BBC show, earning millions of sales and merchandising.

It is under no threat.

Oh, and screw the Mail. Backwards. With a thistle.
hardylane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 08:33
Thunder Lips
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,553
Ratings aside, the "creative nosedive" bit isn't a million miles off the mark.
Thunder Lips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 08:42
hardylane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,910
Ratings aside, the "creative nosedive" bit isn't a million miles off the mark.
In your opinion.
hardylane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 08:48
Mulett
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 6,675
Well, at least they're talking about Moffat rather than the show being axed. We should be grateful for small mercies.
Mulett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2013, 09:22
ocav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,991
I'd quite like to see the License Fee go on a new department called The Daily Mail Department. This would be the sole point of contact at the BBC for comment and they would spoonfeed them rubbish on a daily basis
ocav is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:32.