4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jan 18, 2022 15:28:03 GMT
Everyone's going on about whether the BBC is broadcasting precisely the right balance of programming and missing the point, which is that this is the Conservatives punishing the BBC for being the BBC and not Pravda.
Other democratic objectives of this government: Mandatory ID for voting, despite there being no significant voting fraud. Strict control of protests. Banning strong encryption on the Internet so anything you do online can be monitored.
|
|
2,545 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 18, 2022 17:13:02 GMT
BBC Parliament doesn’t need broadcasting live, but it costs so very little I don’t see the harm in retaining it. But it could move online and be replaced by a live radio broadcast instead I guess. What I will say is that I never used it until Brexit happened, and watching as debates and votes happened around the deals did justify its existence somewhat. I think radio coverage of politics is better than TV. The TV programmes think they need to be knockabout entertainment to stop you flipping channels and have the same guests on over and over again, talking over each other. Radio seems generally more measured and precise. BBC Parliament used to have "The Day in Parliament" and "The Week in Parliament" which were closer analogues to the type of Radio 4 LW in terms of straight reporting of "this is what happened" rather than speculation about "what does all this mean and what happens next". Sadly, already gone thanks to budget cuts.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2022 17:29:53 GMT
I don't have kids but I have young nephew and nieces and being able to switch on children's tv at pretty much any hour can be vital. Does it need to be two live broadcasting channels though? You can access hundreds of CBBC and CBBees programmes on demand on iplayer, which you can access through most TV sets now. I'd rather kids learned to draw or sculpt or read though! Lots of the classic childrens series were shown for generations and still are. But the educational children's programmes are certainly valuable.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2022 17:31:54 GMT
I think radio coverage of politics is better than TV. The TV programmes think they need to be knockabout entertainment to stop you flipping channels and have the same guests on over and over again, talking over each other. Radio seems generally more measured and precise. BBC Parliament used to have "The Day in Parliament" and "The Week in Parliament" which were closer analogues to the type of Radio 4 LW in terms of straight reporting of "this is what happened" rather than speculation about "what does all this mean and what happens next". Sadly, already gone thanks to budget cuts. They have the Politics Live on BBC 2 every lunchtime and that shows PMQ each week.
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Jan 18, 2022 17:56:03 GMT
I wonder if the government have failed to take into account that they'll want the BBC on side during the next election, well before 2027 rolls around. Of course they haven't, Boris Johnson rarely thinks beyond the end of next week, if that far.
|
|
2,545 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 18, 2022 17:56:34 GMT
BBC Parliament used to have "The Day in Parliament" and "The Week in Parliament" which were closer analogues to the type of Radio 4 LW in terms of straight reporting of "this is what happened" rather than speculation about "what does all this mean and what happens next". Sadly, already gone thanks to budget cuts. They have the Politics Live on BBC 2 every lunchtime and that shows PMQ each week. Politics Live does show PMQs but at lot of the airtime is spent with panels of the usual suspects trotting out the same old lines - I can guess what Barry Gardiner or Ben Bradley are going to say, talking over each other and it's unlikely to advance the discussion very far. There is good stuff in there, but in its shift from the Daily Politics to Politics Live it has explicitly sought out the creation of "shareable content" rather than actual facts and information. It's interesting that Ros Atkins from BBC News is getting good crits for solid fact-based reporting. More of that would be welcome. But I'm inclined to agree with The Matthew that discussing specific programmes isn't really adressing the big issue - there are always going to be things we like and things we don't like on the BBC, and that's how it should be. Reducing the BBC risks so much more than whether I like a particular TV format or not.
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jan 19, 2022 2:06:22 GMT
The BBC has a big problem that it has lost its historical advantage of being able to underpay British talent because of a lack of competition. Once they led the world in TV drama. Succession with its British head writer would have been theirs in days gone by but they can't compete for talent with HBO. Instead they have to pretend that Peaky Blinders or Line of Duty represents prestige drama whilst the Americans look on with pity.
When was the last good sitcom on the BBC? What's changed is that today top British stand-up comics can make £20m a tour and the talent follows the money. Over many years sitcoms were just about the most popular thing they did creating characters and memories that became part of the national fabric. Apart from Bob Mortimer's appearances on Would I Lie to You what have they done in the past 10 years? And that's a cheap panel show that would exist without them.
I am old enough to have a lot of affection for what the BBC used to be but they may have signed their own death warrant when they abandoned Reithian high-minded principles of trying to put out work of genuine cultural merit and instead attempted to justify their existence by chasing ratings. Apart from the BBC website for basic news I don't regularly consume any of their content. Most of the stuff they do could easily exist on ITV or Channel 4 so what exactly is the point of BBC1 or BBC2? And how do you justify a regressive and antiquated tax to fund them? The cost doesn't bother me personally and I am happy to support a great British institution. But I'm not actually sure it is that any longer. And teenagers today have more emotional attachment to YouTube as a brand than the BBC. A change is inevitable, we just have to hope it will come from a more thoughtful government than we have currently.
|
|
2,974 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 19, 2022 11:45:52 GMT
The BBC has, for years, failed to support the excellent dramas that it had, scheduling them badly, cancelling them after one series, cutting corners with series length. Part of this seems to be due to personell shifts , the new people failing to support dramas commissioned by previous incumbents, and also the jaw dropping mindset that, for example, because a BBC2 gothic period drama wasn't getting the same ratings I'm a Celeb was getting in the same timeslot over on ITV, it should be axed! I know covid has made things difficult, but the upcoming BBC drama offerings are almost all contemporary crime/thriller/workplace dramas.
I think what's happening is rather like what happened with British comic/graphic novel creators in the 80s: the UK publishers took them for granted, treated them badly, because where else could they go? Then the USA's DC comics saw its chance, began a more 'indie', creative-controlled, less censored strand, and lured the UK creatives over to them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2022 17:59:20 GMT
The BBC has a big problem that it has lost its historical advantage of being able to underpay British talent because of a lack of competition. Once they led the world in TV drama. Succession with its British head writer would have been theirs in days gone by but they can't compete for talent with HBO. Instead they have to pretend that Peaky Blinders or Line of Duty represents prestige drama whilst the Americans look on with pity. When was the last good sitcom on the BBC? What's changed is that today top British stand-up comics can make £20m a tour and the talent follows the money. Over many years sitcoms were just about the most popular thing they did creating characters and memories that became part of the national fabric. Apart from Bob Mortimer's appearances on Would I Lie to You what have they done in the past 10 years? And that's a cheap panel show that would exist without them. I am old enough to have a lot of affection for what the BBC used to be but they may have signed their own death warrant when they abandoned Reithian high-minded principles of trying to put out work of genuine cultural merit and instead attempted to justify their existence by chasing ratings. Apart from the BBC website for basic news I don't regularly consume any of their content. Most of the stuff they do could easily exist on ITV or Channel 4 so what exactly is the point of BBC1 or BBC2? And how do you justify a regressive and antiquated tax to fund them? The cost doesn't bother me personally and I am happy to support a great British institution. But I'm not actually sure it is that any longer. And teenagers today have more emotional attachment to YouTube as a brand than the BBC. A change is inevitable, we just have to hope it will come from a more thoughtful government than we have currently. ITV would have always had the ability to pay more than BBC but BBC always had the better sitcoms and entertainment shows. Stars were always happybto do the TV series so they could keep up a TV presence and then do live work from it. Some comics were more TV based than others and now these panel shows have replaced the older comedy stand up series. Ironically comics now sell more tickets despite having nowhere near the audience reach that 70's and 80's primetime stars did with viewing figures. But there are bigger arenas today also.
|
|
|
Post by jamie2c on Jan 23, 2022 14:36:28 GMT
Ironically comics now sell more tickets despite having nowhere near the audience reach that 70's and 80's primetime stars did with viewing figures. But there are bigger arenas today also. And people go out to watch live shows more now because there is nothing on TV.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 24, 2022 15:01:24 GMT
Doing a bit more reading, for those adamant the future of the BBC is to remain terrestrial, a quote from Tim Davie's statement regarding the licence fee freeze "transitioning the organisation to a digital future and delivering distinctive and impartial content."
Whilst I was convinced a reduction of regional output would be seen, the 6-year plan includes a plan to "create a compelling News and local proposition beyond linear".
|
|
1,296 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jan 24, 2022 15:35:23 GMT
I look forward to "impartial content" -- outside of Newsnight that would make a pleasant change -- but with Tory-boy Davie at the helm, I won't hold my breath.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jan 24, 2022 16:17:39 GMT
I look forward to "impartial content" -- outside of Newsnight that would make a pleasant change -- but with Tory-boy Davie at the helm, I won't hold my breath. People get very hung up on the 'impartial' aspect in finite and specific detail. Overall I think it balances out, some programmes may have certain leanings but others provide a fair counterweight. For all the people that say Question Time (for example) is right wing, other will argue a lot of the humour of Mock the Week tends to be fairly left leaning. It's about providing balance and nuance rather than 'here's 24/365 of expressionless entertainment'.
|
|
3,937 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 24, 2022 21:29:19 GMT
Lots of right-wing people complain the BBC is too left-wing and lots of left-wing people complain the BBC is too right-wing: I'd say that probably means the BBC have got the balance about correct!
|
|
1,296 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jan 25, 2022 6:03:34 GMT
Lots of right-wing people complain the BBC is too left-wing and lots of left-wing people complain the BBC is too right-wing: I'd say that probably means the BBC have got the balance about correct! That argument is regularly trotted out and is nonsense, whether it is applied to the BBC or any other organisation. You cannot infer that complaints from both sides means that both are equally valid. Many people who complain are unable to see past their own confirmation bias. You only have to look at issues that are demonstrably true -- the earth not being flat, Covid being real, climate change -- and you will always find people in denial. That doesn't mean the truth is somewhere in the middle. There is also the Trumpian, right-wing playbook in operation. Hear a news article that is biased to the right? Then complain loudly that it is too left-wing, and some will think it must therefore be balanced. Rees-Mogg is the master of this tactic. As an individual, it is very difficult to objectively deconstruct a news bulletin to measure bias. What you do get a sense of though, very clearly, is how it changes over time. Thirty years ago, I was sensing pro-establishment bias much of the time and 50/50 left/right bias. But now it feels like 10/90 on the latter. I was speaking to some people recently who thought the BBC too left-wing. It turns out that they didn't think it was pro-Labour politically. What they meant was that it was too woke, pro-diversity, anti-white, anti-male, etc.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 25, 2022 9:55:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2022 16:00:08 GMT
Nice to see Anna Home still active and involved. She was a driving force behind masy of the BBC's greatest children's programmes for many years. The right sort of grounding is so important for children as regards the programmes they watch. For people of each generation certain kids TV presenters were always amongst their earliest heroes.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on May 30, 2022 8:51:12 GMT
BBC launching their plan into action moving forward with a view of a digital-first vision, including: Significant investment in iPlayer & Sounds. Domestic & World News merge, as global news provision is revised, leaving the BBC News channel to cater for all, including a tie in Sport. A number of linear (terrestrial broadcast) services are being reviewed with the look to move to online delivery after 3 years (including BBC Four & CBBC) Expansion of boxset & archive provision online (this should get a cheer from a few here, who have professed their need for this) Review of the entire Classic sector with a look to bring in 3rd party investment in performing groups.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 13:18:41 GMT
I'm not in favour of the licensing fee as I've said before and if one of the two major parties ever put this in a manifesto I think it can be a vote winner. But putting CBBC online could stop some children being able to watch it if they didn't have devices. I think the BBC should look at what it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and the money should be concentrated on what content they provide to the UK and not worldwide. Have a strong BBC 1 amd 2 with the core Radio stations both national and regional. Why not share CBBC/Cbeebies channels with BBC 3 or 4. One finishes at 7pm and the others start then ?
|
|
4,973 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by TallPaul on May 30, 2022 13:22:00 GMT
Why not share CBBC/Cbeebies channels with BBC 3 or 4. That's exactly what happens!
|
|
2,545 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 30, 2022 13:35:25 GMT
and the money should be concentrated on what content they provide to the UK and not worldwide. The global output is managed by BBC Studios which is a commercial organisation and not funded by the licence fee.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 13:57:43 GMT
Why not share CBBC/Cbeebies channels with BBC 3 or 4. That's exactly what happens! They are on different channels but if they are on same frequencies then that makes sense. I did think CBBC went on beyond 7pm too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 13:59:47 GMT
and the money should be concentrated on what content they provide to the UK and not worldwide. The global output is managed by BBC Studios which is a commercial organisation and not funded by the licence fee. I was thinking about BBC World News. I want BBC to provide core content to it's key demographic like older people who rely on these channels.
|
|
2,545 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 30, 2022 14:08:09 GMT
The global output is managed by BBC Studios which is a commercial organisation and not funded by the licence fee. I was thinking about BBC World News. I want BBC to provide core content to it's key demographic like older people who rely on these channels. "BBC World News is owned and operated by BBC Global News Ltd, part of the BBC's commercial group of companies, and is funded by subscription and advertising revenues, not by the United Kingdom television licence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_News
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on May 30, 2022 14:25:36 GMT
I'm not in favour of the licensing fee as I've said before and if one of the two major parties ever put this in a manifesto I think it can be a vote winner. But putting CBBC online could stop some children being able to watch it if they didn't have devices. I think the BBC should look at what it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and the money should be concentrated on what content they provide to the UK and not worldwide. Have a strong BBC 1 amd 2 with the core Radio stations both national and regional. Why not share CBBC/Cbeebies channels with BBC 3 or 4. One finishes at 7pm and the others start then ? Did you read my post?
|
|
2,545 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 30, 2022 14:39:34 GMT
Although it will be branded as one channel, there will be opt-outs for the UK. Considering that the BBC News channel in the UK currently simulcasts BBC World between 10 & 11am, and most of the evening and overnight from 7pm onwards (and for even longer at weekends), I'm not sure how much will actually change beyond the branding, given that things like PMQs will still be shown on the News channel in the UK but not overseas. The channel will continue to show advertising outside the UK while those breaks will be used to cover UK-specific stories in the way in works at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 17:12:59 GMT
If we are cynical do we need main channel news if BBC has a news channel. Whenever I want news now if I'm not looking online go to BBC News Channel which is effectively 24 hour rolling news. Or if the main channel news bulletins suffice why have news channel. Oh it's because the politicians like it as they want us to listen to them when it suits us.
The BBC political team could have their own comedy show as they have Eric Morecambe now as political editor instead of Kuenssberg and her scarily pulled mouth plus it is good to see Stanley Baxter looking so useful under the name Nick Eardley.
|
|
5,597 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 30, 2022 18:30:10 GMT
I saw a comment somewhere that is it annoying to see programmes which the BBC made now only available on a subscription platform, like prime. It is.
|
|
2,974 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 30, 2022 19:22:16 GMT
If we are cynical do we need main channel news if BBC has a news channel. Whenever I want news now if I'm not looking online go to BBC News Channel which is effectively 24 hour rolling news. Or if the main channel news bulletins suffice why have news channel. Oh it's because the politicians like it as they want us to listen to them when it suits us. The BBC political team could have their own comedy show as they have Eric Morecambe now as political editor instead of Kuenssberg and her scarily pulled mouth plus it is good to see Stanley Baxter looking so useful under the name Nick Eardley. I think they should make BBC2 back into what it was in the 1980s, very strong on arts and sciences, and shift Newsnight over to the news channel so it's no longer snagging up what used to be the arthouse/cult/classic world cinema slot.
|
|
6,366 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 30, 2022 19:26:48 GMT
If we are cynical do we need main channel news if BBC has a news channel. Whenever I want news now if I'm not looking online go to BBC News Channel which is effectively 24 hour rolling news. Or if the main channel news bulletins suffice why have news channel. Oh it's because the politicians like it as they want us to listen to them when it suits us. The BBC political team could have their own comedy show as they have Eric Morecambe now as political editor instead of Kuenssberg and her scarily pulled mouth plus it is good to see Stanley Baxter looking so useful under the name Nick Eardley. I think they should make BBC2 back into what it was in the 1980s, very strong on arts and sciences, and shift Newsnight over to the news channel so it's no longer snagging up what used to be the arthouse/cult/classic world cinema slot. I suspect BBC Two would die a very slow death if it focused solely on arts and sciences.
|
|