[iain]

Originally Posted by bob_loblaw

The only programme I watch on BBC One is Question Time, and only if I remember. However the other day my digibox crashed and was stuck on BBC One. Dr Who was on. What a load of shit. TV for absolute moron numbskulls who need everything spelled out for them. I've seen more hidden meaning in an episode of Pokoyo.

yes - amazingly saturday evening family entertainment isn't some sort of high brow psychological drama.

funny, that.

i'd disagree that anything that isn't high brow is crap tho'.

Iain

[Spot]

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

I did not say I dont like a program so it shouldnt be made. I said it was total drivel and shouldnt be made. Big difference.

Do you think there is a single programme anywhere, made by any broadcaster, which someone somewhere wouldn't describe as 'drivel'?

[clinch]

Originally Posted by Hancock

Yes you know who you are in this forum.

Don’t you ever get tired of your constant and repetitive anti-BBC views?

The Beeb may not be perfect, but it's one of the best broadcasters in the world with very high standards.

And I suspect the ones who moan about the licence fee, don't even have one.

As a journalist of 30 odd years standing, I really do think that the BBC's claims of high standards are pretty overblown these days.
Objectivity in news reporting seems to be a long lost ideal - particularly since the Government successfully bullied the corporation over the Iraq report. The BBC's labour leanings are more noticeable than ever.
Sports coverage is particularly poor. The BBC has settled into a trend of having ex sports men and women reporting and preseting coverage rather than professional journalists and broadcasters. The result is sloppy standards and awful journalism.
Watching Steve Cram supposedly interviewing Pala Ratliffe after she dropped out of the Olympic marathon was unbearable. He spent the whole interview fawning and sucking up rather than asking the questions he should have been asking on the viewers' behalf.
When it comes to football - the BBC have Lineker. Sky have Jeff Stelling. No comparison.

[steve_ludwig]

[quote=iain;15974981so should the BBC scrap anything that *you* think is drivel, even if millions disagree?[/quote]


My opinion is shared by millions.

Also bear in mind that good taste is not as infectious as bad.

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by clinch

As a journalist of 30 odd years standing, I really do think that the BBC's claims of high standards are pretty overblown these days.
Objectivity in news reporting seems to be a long lost ideal - particularly since the Government successfully bullied the corporation over the Iraq report. The BBC's labour leanings are more noticeable than ever.
Sports coverage is particularly poor. The BBC has settled into a trend of having ex sports men and women reporting and preseting coverage rather than professional journalists and broadcasters. The result is sloppy standards and awful journalism.
Watching Steve Cram supposedly interviewing Pala Ratliffe after she dropped out of the Olympic marathon was unbearable. He spent the whole interview fawning and sucking up rather than asking the questions he should have been asking on the viewers' behalf.
When it comes to football - the BBC have Lineker. Sky have Jeff Stelling. No comparison.

Like spelling someones name wrongly for instance....

[iain]

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

My opinion is shared by millions.

Also bear in mind that good taste is not as infectious as bad.

so what?

if the BBC didn't show anything that millions of people weren't interested it wouldn't show anything, would it?

in which case, what's your point?

Iain

[steve_ludwig]

Originally Posted by iain

so what?

if the BBC didn't show anything that millions of people weren't interested it wouldn't show anything, would it?

in which case, what's your point?

Iain

YOu seem to be saying that millions are interested in drivel, which of course I am sure is true. What very simple point you fail to understand is lets leave the showing of drivel to the stations that we dont pay a tv licence for!

[steve_ludwig]

Originally Posted by Elasticband

Like spelling someones name wrongly for instance....

Its a mis-print in case you didnt realise.

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

YOu seem to be saying that millions are interested in drivel, which of course I am sure is true. What very simple point you fail to understand is lets leave the showing of drivel to the stations that we dont pay a tv licence for!

But that would dent the BBC's already flailing reach figures further.

The BBC need the non-PSB "drivel" to drive up their reach figures so that BBC spin doctors can claim the BBC "appeals to everyone".

I personally feel a slimmer PSB-only BBC is needed and leave the drivel to others.

I mean, what point is there in having a BBC if it's just a clone of other existing channels.

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

Its a mis-print in case you didnt realise.

And there was me thinking it was mis-spelt....

Didn't realise that posts were printed out, so it was a DS fault..

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by slow motion

But that would dent the BBC's already flailing reach figures further.

The BBC need the non-PSB "drivel" to drive up their reach figures so that BBC spin doctors can claim the BBC "appeals to everyone".

I personally feel a slimmer PSB-only BBC is needed and leave the drivel to others.

I mean, what point is there in having a BBC if it's just a clone of other existing channels.

But that's the whole point isn't it, it isn't.

The BBC has to cater for all tastes be that 'drivel', up market, down market, creative, non creative, educational, informative etc etc.

The fact that some commercial channels produce some of this content is not really the point.

The private sector in all forms can produce what the public sector can provide, but that is hardly a reason to do away with public services.

[KennyT]

Originally Posted by slow motion

...I mean, what point is there in having a BBC if it's just a clone of other existing channels.

To provide programme genres for the other channels to copy!

K

[steve_ludwig]

Originally Posted by Elasticband

And there was me thinking it was mis-spelt....

Didn't realise that posts were printed out, so it was a DS fault..

How sad you are so pedantic!

Ok, so I meant mis-typed!

[steve_ludwig]

Originally Posted by slow motion

I personally feel a slimmer PSB-only BBC is needed and leave the drivel to others.

I mean, what point is there in having a BBC if it's just a clone of other existing channels.

I agree. The TVL funded bbc should be something special, the best of the best.

[iain]

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

YOu seem to be saying that millions are interested in drivel, which of course I am sure is true. What very simple point you fail to understand is lets leave the showing of drivel to the stations that we dont pay a tv licence for!

the very simple point that you're missing is that 'drivel' isn't actually defined as 'something that steve_ludwig considers to be drivel'.

dr who, for example, could also be defined as very entertaining and well made family entertainment'.

as i already said, if the BBC didn't show anything that some people thought was drivel, it wouldn't show anything.

Iain

[iain]

Originally Posted by slow motion

I mean, what point is there in having a BBC if it's just a clone of other existing channels.

the BBC isn't a clone of other existing channels tho'.

or, if it is, which would you say it was a clone of?

and how are you describing "flailing"?

Iain

[andyk22]

Originally Posted by iain

it's your honest, hand on heart, opinion that all of :

....

were "atrocious crap"?

Iain

Iain , to be fair could you organise that lot into on current broadcast,1 month since original broadcast, 3 months , 6 months and 1 year.

[hobbes79]

Originally Posted by mikw

Top Gear
Planet Earth
COast
How we built Britian
Doctor Who
Nuclear Secrets
Paris
Rome
Trawlermen
Click
Medium
Heroes

The list goes on

Hardly "atrocious crap"!

And as for an "small fortune", how much are you paying for your Sky Subscription????

You can't only pay for what you watch on there either can you?

I actually have no strong feelings on the fee either way, but I do disagree a little with this.

Off the top of my head, Medium, Heroes and Rome are all programmes made in the US. In fact, all these shows can be seen on other channels that I CHOOSE to purchase on Sky (Living, Sci Fi, etc).

So now I have to pay a fee to watch shows the BBC didn't even make months after they've already been shown Doesn't seem quite right.

Plus, the argument for the fee seems to often revolve around us not getting re-shown US shows, like Ch 5 make a habit of. But if they are just doing the same thing, I don't quite see the benefit. Why not let Ch 5 continue to get all these US shows and put a discount on the licence fee? It doesn't really bother me who shows the same US shows!

[mikw]

[quote=hobbes79;15979376]

Off the top of my head, Medium, Heroes and Rome are all programmes made in the US. In fact, all these shows can be seen on other channels that I CHOOSE to purchase on Sky (Living, Sci Fi, etc).

Yes, i am aware of this. The list was meant to be a cross-section of programmes, imports as well as home-made.

So now I have to pay a fee to watch shows the BBC didn't even make months after they've already been shown Doesn't seem quite right.

But this is what you have do with SKY too! Difference is with the BBC there's NO EXTRA COST!

Plus, the argument for the fee seems to often revolve around us not getting re-shown US shows, like Ch 5 make a habit of. But if they are just doing the same thing, I don't quite see the benefit. Why not let Ch 5 continue to get all these US shows and put a discount on the licence fee? It doesn't really bother me who shows the same US shows!

I think that the BBC is duty bound to show all PSB, entertainment and imported shows. It's a fact of life that they have to get ratings too, otherwise the license fee would have to go.

As it stands thought the BBC is cheaper that all the other TV organistions. £2.60 a week license fee is less than the 6p in the pound that commercial media costs us (because the companies we buy goods off advertise), and cheaper that subscription telly too.

[iain]

Originally Posted by andyk22

Iain , to be fair could you organise that lot into on current broadcast,1 month since original broadcast, 3 months , 6 months and 1 year.

any reason why?

the point's the same, i'd have thought.

most of it's aired within the last 12 months or so.

Iain

[iain]

Originally Posted by hobbes79

I actually have no strong feelings on the fee either way, but I do disagree a little with this.

Off the top of my head, Medium, Heroes and Rome are all programmes made in the US. In fact, all these shows can be seen on other channels that I CHOOSE to purchase on Sky (Living, Sci Fi, etc).

So now I have to pay a fee to watch shows the BBC didn't even make months after they've already been shown Doesn't seem quite right.

Plus, the argument for the fee seems to often revolve around us not getting re-shown US shows, like Ch 5 make a habit of. But if they are just doing the same thing, I don't quite see the benefit. Why not let Ch 5 continue to get all these US shows and put a discount on the licence fee? It doesn't really bother me who shows the same US shows!

what if people don't subscribe to those channels tho'?

given that US imports make up such a small proportion of the BBC's output, how much of a discount would you expect? (especially as presumably something would be broadcast instead of these shows?)

and isn't Rome a BBC co-production?

Iain

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

How sad you are so pedantic!

Ok, so I meant mis-typed!

When a journalist makes a post that includes the following...

Sports coverage is particularly poor. The BBC has settled into a trend of having ex sports men and women reporting and preseting coverage rather than professional journalists and broadcasters. The result is sloppy standards and awful journalism.

Then one would expect that same journalist to live by those standards.

IE

Practice what you preach....

Ps

I was sad but I've cheered up a bit now..

[Spot]

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

YOu seem to be saying that millions are interested in drivel, which of course I am sure is true. What very simple point you fail to understand is lets leave the showing of drivel to the stations that we dont pay a tv licence for!

Who is to decide what is 'drivel'?

[iain]

do we have any examples of the BBC's sloppy sports coverage?

Iain

[hobbes79]

[quote=mikw;15979645]

Originally Posted by hobbes79

Yes, i am aware of this. The list was meant to be a cross-section of programmes, imports as well as home-made.

But this is what you have do with SKY too! Difference is with the BBC there's NO EXTRA COST!

I think that the BBC is duty bound to show all PSB, entertainment and imported shows. It's a fact of life that they have to get ratings too, otherwise the license fee would have to go.

As it stands thought the BBC is cheaper that all the other TV organistions. £2.60 a week license fee is less than the 6p in the pound that commercial media costs us (because the companies we buy goods off advertise), and cheaper that subscription telly too.

Well, some would say the difference with the BBC is that I HAVE to pay for it. Don't quite understand the "NO EXTRA COST" statement. Surely if the BBC purchased less shows, the savings would be passed on (in an ideal world anyway).

"As it stands thought the BBC is cheaper that all the other TV organistions"... errr, Channel 5 is free... unless the BBC actually start giving me money, I don't quite see how they can ever be cheaper Sorry, I guess I still just couldn't care less who shows me the same shows. If Channel 5, Channel 4, E4, etc want to do it for free for me, then I still don't quite see the wisdom of paying the BBC to give me the same US shows