The BBC: Has it gone down hill since the move to Manchester?

[Butts]

Coming back on topic it's worth remembering that when BBC and ITV both covered the same event, generally England football, there were far more watching the BBC.

This has always been the case.

Go back thirty years when they both had the FA Cup Final on Live and BBC would always trounce ITV. I would venture to suggest the BBC would do the same to SKY or BT Sport in the case of simultaneous transmission of the same event whatever it was.

The BBC is by far the Premier Broadcaster in the UK - if not the world.

"You make it what it is" - anyone remember that

 

[greyman42]

I must admit I find Good Morning Britain to be far far worse than the BBC Breakfast personally. But I certainly agree that even BBC Breakfast can be awful at times (particularly after about 0830). Is it really so hard for someone to produce a breakfast time show that condenses into a half hour slot the headlines, some business news, some political or other analysis of a main story, the weather, local headlines, local travel and local weather?

This morning for example interviews with the Winter Olympic Athletes. I mean I'm very pleased/proud/etc about our performance at the Games just gone. But I don't really want to know about how they feel about it all first thing in the morning.

Then again maybe I'm just becoming a grumpy old man a few decades early



Yes I agree with that. I don't necessarily object to the idea of adverts between programmes or, thinking of sport, during half-time/drinks/tea/lunch/etc but when you're paying subs I do think it's a quite a wheeze that they then have the gumption to show adverts in the middle of programmes as well.

(Another vote for a commentary free option here as well! Sometimes they're just annoying other times I just want the sport on in the background and commentary is distracting)

I think that GMB is better than BBC Breakfast since Piers Morgan was brought in. He has an opinion on matters and is not afraid to voice them. He speaks a lot of sense in my opinion.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think that GMB is better than BBC Breakfast since Piers Morgan was brought in. He has an opinion on matters and is not afraid to voice them. He speaks a lot of sense in my opinion.

You see I don't particularly like Piers Morgan but I can put up with him. But by far the bigger problem is Susanna Reid who I just cannot stand. It was a happy day indeed for me when she left BBC Breakfast!

 

[underbank]

BBC Breakfast started going downhill in 2000 when they turned it in to a magazine show with a newsreader (initially Moira Stuart) giving regular news bulletins. The presenters also changed from journalists like Nicholas Owen, Jeremy Bowen and Sophie Raworth to presenters with little journalism experience like Natasha Kaplinsky and Kate Silverton.

BBC Breakfast is unwatchable drivel these days. What's even worse is that they also put the same inane drivel on the BBC news channel, when it's blatantly not news. To add to awful presenters, don't forget Steph McGovern who's supposed to be their business or finance editor but can barely read the autocue and clearly doesn't have the faintest idea of the subjects she talks about! Most of the BBC breakfast presenters are wannabee celebrities hoping to emulate Susanna Reid.

 

[IanD]

This morning for example interviews with the Winter Olympic Athletes. I mean I'm very pleased/proud/etc about our performance at the Games just gone. But I don't really want to know about how they feel about it all first thing in the morning.

Then again maybe I'm just becoming a grumpy old man a few decades early

The other week they had live coverage of the athletes picking up their outfits. Rivetting stuff.

 

[yorksrob]

Radio 2 is still good, particularly Ken Bruce, Pick of the Pops, Paul O'Grady, Sounds of the Sixties, Sounds of the Seventies and Sounds of the Eighties (Isn't it about time we had Sounds of the 90's ?).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think that GMB is better than BBC Breakfast since Piers Morgan was brought in. He has an opinion on matters and is not afraid to voice them. He speaks a lot of sense in my opinion.

What's the opposite of a "Mic drop"? Because I think this post ends with one!

One big criticism of the BBCs online content is on the football pages where there'll often be several different articles about a certain Stretford-based club, not to mention spurious references to that club in articles that don't concern them. Some have drawn conclusions based on the move to Salford Quays but I think the reasoning is less sinister (or more sinister, if you over-think it):
The online content has become more "click-baity" in recent times, which whilst it might drive up traffic, in the UK it won't drive up advertising revenue. But anyone who's visited the BBC website while overseas will have noted that the pages do include ads. Given that the aforementioned football team do have a massive global following, it makes (financial) sense for the BBC Website to mention them as often as possible in order to increase traffic and therefore revenue.

So, I don't buy the football conspiracies, but I do think the BBC has suffered under Conservative-led governments since 2010, who have an interest in increasing the market share and coverage of the corporate media moguls whose public support they rely on.

The quality has dropped for a number of reasons: the key ones being funding cuts and failure to adapt to the changing marketplace.

 

[Dentonian]

The other week they had live coverage of the athletes picking up their outfits. Rivetting stuff.

Yes, but at least it was within 10 miles of Salford. Since the move, the OB content has become more and more London-centric. In fact, Carol Kirkwood should be paid by the London Tourist Authority, not by the Licence fee payer. Before people make the obvious retorts, us Mancs don't expect everything to based locally; How about us learning about Plymouth or Swansea or Norwich or Leeds or Dundee or Derry or.......anywhere within 20 miles of these places.
Who remembers the travelogue before "Life of Brian" when it was first at the cinema? Funniest thing EVER!!!! And for "gondolas", think London Eye.

As regards the Stretford based football club, never mind the BBC. Its a standing joke that if City beat Barca/Real Madrid/Juve in the CL Final 5-0 in May, we will have to scroll down the MEN website through Moaninho's latest spat with Conte, Pogba's latest spat with his hairdresser, Ashley Young's latest spat with a Traffic Warden etc etc, before reaching anything about City.

 

[Dentonian]

Bargain Hunt
Homes Under the Hammer
Escape to the Country

"Padding dross" such as these perhaps are just one way of letting the BBC inform their viewing public of what licence fee restrictions can mean in the lessening of quality programmes that will ensue as a result.

Three programmes crying out for satire if ever there were any? "Paul is a single parent from Hattersley, and after paying the bills, bus fares and child care for his 7 year old, he has put away £1.89 a month from his Minimum wage job over he last 12 years. He asked if we could find him a home in the country for £280 - a bit more if he could speak to the local loan shark.........

 

[dcsprior]

I must admit I find Good Morning Britain to be far far worse than the BBC Breakfast personally. But I certainly agree that even BBC Breakfast can be awful at times (particularly after about 0830). Is it really so hard for someone to produce a breakfast time show that condenses into a half hour slot the headlines, some business news, some political or other analysis of a main story, the weather, local headlines, local travel and local weather?

TBH I'd be happy with the audio from The Today Programme (or something following a similar format, such as Good Morning Scotland), accompanied by some visual content - this wouldn't need to be live pictures of those speaking, but things like a weather map accompanying that segment, a table of statistics when a sports match was discussed, a news story accompanied by an infographic or map, the review of the papers including pictures of them, etc... Clearly the audio content already works without the visual, so you could glance up from your breakfast if you wanted to, or not if you didn't. This would also lend itself to minimal-bandwidth distribution for consumption on mobile, etc.

 

[GusB]

BBC Breakfast is unwatchable drivel these days. What's even worse is that they also put the same inane drivel on the BBC news channel, when it's blatantly not news. To add to awful presenters, don't forget Steph McGovern who's supposed to be their business or finance editor but can barely read the autocue and clearly doesn't have the faintest idea of the subjects she talks about! Most of the BBC breakfast presenters are wannabee celebrities hoping to emulate Susanna Reid.

That's one thing that does infuriate me - if I want to watch inane drivel, I'll switch to BBC1; I don't need to see the same stuff on the BBC News channel as well.

 

[Flying Snail]

Three programmes crying out for satire if ever there were any? "Paul is a single parent from Hattersley, and after paying the bills, bus fares and child care for his 7 year old, he has put away £1.89 a month from his Minimum wage job over he last 12 years. He asked if we could find him a home in the country for £280 - a bit more if he could speak to the local loan shark.........

 

[whhistle]

Everything is subjective though.

The BBC has had a spell of really gripping dramas - Three Girls, The Missing, Doctor Foster to name three.
However, those ended in what, the Autumn? Perhaps they're giving way to nature programmes at the moment, which you simply won't find a higher quality of elsewhere in the world. Hence ITV doesn't really show any.

I for one am glad people like David Attenborough and Mary Berry are loyal to the BBC. I mean, America would have snapped them up and commercialised them for sure.

Plus, moves to other channels from presenters to programmes don't seem to ever do well. Look at what happened to the original presenters of The One Show - moved to ITV and killed their morning TV. Bake Off is yet to be seen. But it's not just the BBC though. Big Brothers' move to Channel 5 hasn't done it any favours, but then it was well past it's best before date on Channel 4.

ITV just seem to have the same old, same old shows - I predict 50% of them are phone in sort of shows during the evening peak. Not the best quality of programming. But people are starting to get sick of these sorts of shows, even with the "everything is fine and dandy" view ITV promote of these programmes.

In short answer: No.

 

[northwichcat]

Regarding programs changing channels. Anyone remember when Channel 4 got The Simpsons contract? There was a lot of relief that Channel 5 didn't get it (this was before most households had digital TV and some areas had poor Channel 5 reception) but when they started showing repeats it became clear that Channel 4 were broadcasting more heavily edited programs in a 6pm slot than BBC had been and jokes the BBC cleared for a 6pm slot, weren't being cleared for a 6pm slot on Channel 4.

 

[DarloRich]

I think that GMB is better than BBC Breakfast since Piers Morgan was brought in. He has an opinion on matters and is not afraid to voice them. He speaks a lot of sense in my opinion.

You are, of course, welcome to hold that opinion. My opinion is that Piers Morgan is a rentaquote moron who would struggle to find the right side of topic if he was armed with a map.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Is there an implication in the original post that anything not produced in London has to be inferior?

Not at all - but people have said that the BBC was too London centric, moving it to Manchester has just made it Manchester centric and with all the best will in the world it is just a provincial city and not a world beater. Your national broadcaster should be based in a leading world city and London is the only one we have in this country.

 

[northwichcat]

Not at all - but people have said that the BBC was too London centric, moving it to Manchester has just made it Manchester centric and with all the best will in the world it is just a provincial city and not a world beater. Your national broadcaster should be based in a leading world city and London is the only one we have in this country.

The BBC is still based in London. Why do you have an objection to a small amount of the BBC's content being produced in Salford, did you have the same objection when the BBC used Pebble Mill?

The BBC's primary focus is production of TV and radio content for a UK audience - what does it matter if someone in New York watching BBC America hasn't heard of Manchester or Salford?

 

[takno]

Not at all - but people have said that the BBC was too London centric, moving it to Manchester has just made it Manchester centric and with all the best will in the world it is just a provincial city and not a world beater. Your national broadcaster should be based in a leading world city and London is the only one we have in this country.

A lot of the decent output these days is coming from Cardiff (where a large chunk of the drama moved to) and Scotland. The BBC still has its headquarters and a large chunk of the news and other output in London.

At the end of the day TV production now doesn't need the kind of studio space or facilities TV centre provided, so a move was inevitable. If you're doing that anyway, and work in an industry where more and more stuff can be done from anywhere then moving some of the less location-sensitive stuff around the country a bit makes a lot of sense. A national broadcaster should reflect the nation, rather than directing the nation what to think from London.

 

[Harbon 1]

I wrote a strongly worded email when they took off Radcliffe & Marconie a few years back.

Luckily they moved to a radio station that plays a much better variety of new music

 

[AlterEgo]

I think traditional tv is dying out, it's not what it once was and now has to compete against the infinite web content available to people.

This is probably more like it.

You only have to look at the success of YouTube to see how many watch hours have slipped away from mainstream broadcasters - particularly among younger people. (I’m 31 and I’m OLD on YouTube)

 

[yorksrob]

Luckily they moved to a radio station that plays a much better variety of new music

I preferred the ease of switching on the radio when I was having my tea when they were on, rather than having to fire up the computer. I do own a digital radio, but in true digital tradition its not managed to pick up a digital signal since the day I got it out of the box.

In terms of Radio 2, I'd happily see the back of the Sunday Morning religious show (we've already got religion on Radio 4 at the same time) and the show tunes (sorry Elaine), but I can't see them going anywhere.

Comedy is another one I still return to the BBC for, however there's too much navel gazing identity stand-up comedy on Radio 4 at the moment for my taste (and not enough sketch shows), but there are some gems around. Mark Steele's 'In Town' was hilarious. 'The Detectorists' was brilliant, and I'll never understand why Josh Widecombe's enjoyable eponymous sitcom and the excellently sharp "People Just Do Nothing" are confined to cyberspace when they surely deserve to be on the proper telly.

Of course, there's always the BBC's excellent back catalogue. Been enjoying a lot of classic comedies on 4 Extra and am currently doing all the 'Lovejoy's, all of them (to paraphrase a recent internet series).

 

[Dentonian]

Not at all - but people have said that the BBC was too London centric, moving it to Manchester has just made it Manchester centric and with all the best will in the world it is just a provincial city and not a world beater. Your national broadcaster should be based in a leading world city and London is the only one we have in this country.

Yes. I believe the North Korea state news station is based in PyongYang as well, as that's the only leading world city there!
Manchester just a provincial city and not a world beater, eh? Where were you taught history/politics/economics etc? Hollywood, Ca?

Apart from the first Industrial Revolution (mass production, factory automation), the second IR (the computer and splitting the atom) and the third IR (graphene - which London are giving away to China); Apart from the birthplace of he Suffragettes and the Trade Union movement; Apart from some of the biggest pop bands of the last 60 years; Apart from two of the biggest football clubs on the planet;
What have the Mancs* every done for us?

* With some help from our neighbours to the North (IR) and West (popular culture), granted..

Oh! And which bit of the BBC is Manchester centric? The weather forecast from the London Eye, Hampstead Heath, Hampton Court, Chelsea Flower Show, Kew Gardens etc. And the documentaries about the 15 billion pound railway (whatever happened to Harry Enfield; "Loadsamoneyyyyyyyyyyy"?, Heathrow (part 2 will of course be called the 19 billion pound Runway) London's crumbling sewers (make up your own puns, I have), The Thames Barrier........

 

[Bevan Price]

Moneybags United do seem to get more than a fair share of live commentaries on BBC R5. Fortunately this year, they haven't been inlicted on us on TV in every round (Round 3 onwards) of the FA Cup. With 20 top flight league clubs, a fair balanced coverage would be each club featuring in 10% of live commentaries - but I bet some clubs appear a lot more than that.

 

[Dentonian]

Moneybags United do seem to get more than a fair share of live commentaries on BBC R5. Fortunately this year, they haven't been inlicted on us on TV in every round (Round 3 onwards) of the FA Cup. With 20 top flight league clubs, a fair balanced coverage would be each club featuring in 10% of live commentaries - but I bet some clubs appear a lot more than that.

I assume the idea of radio commentary on any sport is for those with sight loss/impairment, so it might be that different criteria applies. However, with TV (whoever the broadcaster is), surely, live matches should be picked on likely entertainment value. Consequently, why would anyone want to broadcast Moaninho's United?

 

[greyman42]

I assume the idea of radio commentary on any sport is for those with sight loss/impairment, so it might be that different criteria applies. However, with TV (whoever the broadcaster is), surely, live matches should be picked on likely entertainment value. Consequently, why would anyone want to broadcast Moaninho's United?

Because they have a large fan base and so will get a lot of listeners compared to ,say, Watford.

 

[Butts]

The BBC does come into it's own when we have extreme weather. A lot of people turn to it on audio , visual or online.

You can access any of the BBC's local News Programs to find out what is happening anywhere in the UK.

 

[Dentonian]

The BBC does come into it's own when we have extreme weather. A lot of people turn to it on audio , visual or online.

You can access any of the BBC's local News Programs to find out what is happening anywhere in the UK.

Same goes for ITV as regards to TV at least - albeit weather forecasts are notoriously inaccurate and the graphics are not chronologically in line with what the forecaster is saying. I have to concede though that I don't have a radio. Now, interestingly, my brother has one in his car and he used to ell me that he listened to Radio 2 not Radio Manchester, because local radio NEVER reported disruptions along Hyde Road or other parts of eastern GM. They are also misleading. Yesterday, they said that no trains wwere passing through Marple or Rose Hill due to signal problems. Yet once I could get the National Rail app working, all that was happening was minor delays.

 

[Dentonian]

Because they have a large fan base and so will get a lot of listeners compared to ,say, Watford.

Even if I take my blue moon tinted specs off, talking to people from "the other side" such as works colleagues and family, that large fan base is shrinking, at least within the non-prawn sandwich brigade. They are getting bored with how United play especially away from home, and so surely it must impact R5 listening figures.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Yes. I believe the North Korea state news station is based in PyongYang as well, as that's the only leading world city there!
Manchester just a provincial city and not a world beater, eh? Where were you taught history/politics/economics etc? Hollywood, Ca?

Apart from the first Industrial Revolution (mass production, factory automation), the second IR (the computer and splitting the atom) and the third IR (graphene - which London are giving away to China); Apart from the birthplace of he Suffragettes and the Trade Union movement; Apart from some of the biggest pop bands of the last 60 years; Apart from two of the biggest football clubs on the planet;
What have the Mancs* every done for us?

* With some help from our neighbours to the North (IR) and West (popular culture), granted..

Oh! And which bit of the BBC is Manchester centric? The weather forecast from the London Eye, Hampstead Heath, Hampton Court, Chelsea Flower Show, Kew Gardens etc. And the documentaries about the 15 billion pound railway (whatever happened to Harry Enfield; "Loadsamoneyyyyyyyyyyy"?, Heathrow (part 2 will of course be called the 19 billion pound Runway) London's crumbling sewers (make up your own puns, I have), The Thames Barrier........

A world city is one people actually want to go to - that people know about throughout the world. Whether you like it or not and however much you bang your provincial drum Manchester is NOT a world city. Ask people through out the world where Hyde Park is and where Heaton Park is and you will get your answer - Wembley against Etihad (more will know it as an airline) etc etc etc... mention Piccadilly and most will associate it with Piccadilly Circus... yes there maybe many good things come out of the city but London and many aspects of it from Scotland Yard to Buckingham Palace are known throughout the world. Apart from possibly Old Trafford don't really think you could say that about anything else in Manchester. That is the difference between a true world city and a provincial one.

 

[Howardh]

Luckily they moved to a radio station that plays a much better variety of new music

Don't get me started on radio! Luckily the One Good Thing about media today is internet radio, where you can find exactly what you want when you want it, and often with the bare minimum of advertising. Time upon an once the only chance of getting vocal or progressive trance was a couple of hours on Radio 1 and maybe, if you were really lucky, a Saturday night on your local commercial. And stuff like German/Dutch schlager was a no-no for anyone.
So a big thank you to Mr. Internet for lovely daytime electro-chill in the form of Ibiza Global and Sonica Radios and JennyFM for some decent mixes in the evenings.