BBC and ITV quality

[yorksrob]

Comparing content from 25 years ago on any channel to today is unlikely to be a favourable result, not because what's being made today is rubbish, but because we only remember the great and memorable stuff from that long ago, not the dross and constant repeats.

Here's what BBC One was showing 25 years ago today - https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/service_bbc_one_london/1996-12-28 - looks like it was a Saturday, so you've got kids stuff in the morning, grandstand in the afternoon and casualty in the evening. But does anything really on that schedule stand out as high quality, must watch stuff?

That Saturday line up is missing Allo Allo unfortunately (which was to my mind outstanding).

If like to see more sitcoms and sketch shows. I enjoyed Greg Davies' recent sitcom about the forensic cleaner as well as Jason Manford's sitcom based in Scarborough. Will we be treated to a second series I wonder ?

 

[Paul Jones 88]

All the main five channels have been useless over Christmas, utterly crap.

 

[AM9]

It has just one joke "****", we all know what it really means but the BBC can't say it.

Not sure what you are inferring, but I find the show both interesting and funny.

 

[Dai Corner]

I shouldn't really be posting as I have watched little television except rugby, snooker and regional news for years.

I much prefer YouTube where I can watch what I like when I want to. Transport, engineering, tradesmen at work. Yes there are dumbed down versions on TV, but watch those when I can watch the real thing?

 

[MotCO]

I think that the BBC's reduction in the quality of their journalism is exemplified by yesterday's broadcast relating to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ffrey-epsteins-former-lawyer-alan-dershowitz/)

BBC admits interview with Jeffrey Epstein's former lawyer Alan Dershowitz should never have happened​

Mr Dershowitz spoke on BBC News in the immediate aftermath of the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict despite his own links to the case


By Victoria Ward 30 December 2021 • 12:41pm


Alan Dershowitz has been accused of sexual abuse by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who has made similar charges against Prince Andrew

The BBC has admitted its interview with Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, in the immediate aftermath of the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict should never have happened.
The corporation was widely criticised for turning to Dershowitz for reaction, despite his own links to the case.
Dershowitz, 83, has been accused of sexual abuse by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who has made similar charges against Prince Andrew. Both men deny the charges.
However, when he appeared on the BBC News channel just minutes after a guilty verdict was reached in Maxwell’s trial, the Harvard professor was introduced as a “constitutional lawyer” and no reference was made to his involvement in the case or his links to Epstein.
Dershowitz then tried to discredit Ms Giuffre without being challenged by the presenter.

The BBC said in a statement today: “Last night's interview with Alan Dershowitz after the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict did not meet the BBC’s editorial standards, as Mr Dershowitz was not a suitable person to interview as an impartial analyst, and we did not make the relevant background clear to our audience.

“We will look into how this happened.”
Dershowtiz told the channel on Wednesday night: “The most important thing for British viewers is that the Government was very careful who it used as witnesses.
“It did not use as a witness the woman who accused Prince Andrew, who accused me, who accused many other people, because the government didn’t believe she was telling the truth.
“In fact she, Virginia Giuffre, was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse, so this case does nothing to strengthen the case against Prince Andrew, indeed it weakens the case against Prince Andrew considerably because the government was very selective in who it used.
“It used only witnesses it said were credible and it deliberately didn’t use the main witness, the woman who started the whole investigation — Virginia Giuffre — because they ultimately didn’t believe she was telling the truth and they didn’t believe a jury would believe her and they were right in doing so.”
Nadia Whitthome, the Labour MP, said: “Alan Dershowitz, who was accused of the same crimes as Prince Andrew, is on the BBC trying to silence victims following Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction.
“I can’t believe this needs to be said but the BBC should not give a platform to people accused of child sexual abuse.”
Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister, said that the interview represented a “huge error by the BBC” and that all the BBC had to do was search Dershowitz’s name on Google to see that he was not an appropriate guest.

I'm sure that such a lapse would not have happened in years gone by.

 

[Busaholic]

I shouldn't really be posting as I have watched little television except rugby, snooker and regional news for years.

I much prefer YouTube where I can watch what I like when I want to. Transport, engineering, tradesmen at work. Yes there are dumbed down versions on TV, but watch those when I can watch the real thing?

I agree with you about YouTube, but the proliferation of adverts (mostly for Google or itself) begins to really jar after a short while and I don't wish to pay what I regard as protection money to have them removed.

 

[Bevan Price]

On the subject of local news, there is a world of difference between BBC London and the BBC local news that is offered to other regions. In the provincial news, it is often that the makers struggle to fill 25 minutes with enough local events and obscure local snippets are piulled out of the backup drawer to plug the gap. London, seemingly alone, usually has enough fresh and important events every day to avoid scraping the bottom of the journalists barrel.
As a consequence, the local news seems to get chopped at the slightest excuse when say, a football match overruns, the controllers insist on broadcasting all the post match prattling on BBC1 thereby sacrificing the news. Because of the way inter-studio circuits are deplyed, local news can only be shown on the BBC1 programme stream. However it seems to be too much to ask sports viewers to switch over to BBC2 programme to see their after match gloat/whine.

Pre-match prattling is also overdone to excess. Starting 5 minutes before a match would be fine - we don't need 30, or even 60 minutes of waffle.

 

[52290]

Not sure what you are inferring, but I find the show both interesting and funny.

There's been some auto- censuring of my original post!

 

[TheBigD]

I shouldn't really be posting as I have watched little television except rugby, snooker and regional news for years.

I much prefer YouTube where I can watch what I like when I want to. Transport, engineering, tradesmen at work. Yes there are dumbed down versions on TV, but watch those when I can watch the real thing?

Likewise. Not watched TV since my last TV licence expired in Sept 2018.
Find what I need to watch on the likes of rumble/youtube/bitchute etc, plus podcast on spotify.

I caught a glimpse of the BBC whilst with friends over Xmas and Blankety Blank was showing. It was just a sh!t as the 1980's version.

 

[bspahh]

I think that the BBC's reduction in the quality of their journalism is exemplified by yesterday's broadcast relating to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ffrey-epsteins-former-lawyer-alan-dershowitz/)

The BBC PR apology on twitter was:

Last night's interview with Alan Dershowitz after the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict did not meet the BBC's editorial standards, as Mr Dershowitz was not a suitable person to interview as an impartial analyst, and we did not make the relevant background clear to our audience. We will look into how this happened.

The Sunday Sport replied

That's putting it mildly. It didn't even meet OUR editorial standards

 

[DustyBin]

The Sunday Sport replied

That's putting it mildly. It didn't even meet OUR editorial standards

Quality!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I despise the BBC. The only decent shows they make recently are The Apprentice, Ghosts, and maybe the odd show like Happy Valley. Used to be great with Doctor Who until halfway through Matt Smith, but of course we have to remember the BBC destroyed much of the original two Doctor's stories in huge cultural vandalism.
Typical day on the BBC for the last decade is:
Breakfast.
Proprty show like Cash in the Attic.
Bargain Hunt.
News.
Doctors.
News.
Escape to the Country.
Pointless.
News.
(Note at least half of the above shows are repeats as well, the news is also repetitive with constant "reminders" of the news you just heard, and local news can repeat national story).

As a result, last year I stopped watching live TV and cancelled the TV Licences.
Since then I have been getting non-stop threatening letters falsely accussing me of illegally watching TV when I'm not, threatening fines of £1,000, and demanding my private information that no company that I do not use is ever entitled to.
They should of been shut down for all the scandals they have been involved with, they covered up Jimmy Saville stuff after he died, they contributed to the trouble Princess Diana had, they falsely claim to be non-biased when every day their agenda was clear.
The BBC can rot in hell for all I care, evil organisation terrorising anyone who doesn't pay them.

 

[Altrincham]

25 years ago the BBC was still producing original comedy, whereas ITV seemed to be concentrating on increasing the frequency of soaps (ITV were still producing great dramas 25 years ago and even today I think their dramas are much better than the BBC’s drama output).

Forward to today and both channels seem intent on showing as many quiz shows and reality TV programmes as possible. One recent Saturday evening’s TV viewing had a total of 6 hours of quizzes across both channels.

The BBC in particular seems intent with showing cookery programmes at peak times, and quite a large number of them too (there’s 90 minutes of cookery on BBC2 tonight).

 

[LOL The Irony]

This festive season was the worst ever for the bbc as far as I'm aware. Mrs Brown was panned and Doctor Who saw its worst ratings since it was rebooted. How the bbc has survived for this long, I'll never know.

 

[AM9]

This festive season was the worst ever for the bbc as far as I'm aware. Mrs Brown was panned and Doctor Who saw its worst ratings since it was rebooted. How the bbc has survived for this long, I'll never know.

Because the BBC doesn't rely on any one demographic. Given the almost limitless choice that both licence holders and casual TV viewers have, the BBC's ratings hold up pretty well. Much of the BBC's output is part of their public obligation yet the current government and other's since 2010 have done everything to make the BBC inviable by trimming the budget to make anything more than that as difficult as possible.

 

[GusB]

As a result, last year I stopped watching live TV and cancelled the TV Licences.
Since then I have been getting non-stop threatening letters falsely accussing me of illegally watching TV when I'm not, threatening fines of £1,000, and demanding my private information that no company that I do not use is ever entitled to.

Have you informed them that you no longer require one?

Telling us you don't need a TV Licence - TV Licensing ™

Let us know if you don’t need a TV Licence. But, if you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV, then you do need to be covered by one.

www.tvlicensing.co.uk

No TV? Not watching live TV on any channel or service, or BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer? Empty property? You can let us know here by completing a No Licence Needed declaration.

The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:

watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
download or watch any BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer.
This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.

As far as I've heard they'll still remind you every few years, presumably to check that circumstances haven't changed, but it should stop the demands for payment.

 

[Darandio]

Have you informed them that you no longer require one?

As far as I've heard they'll still remind you every few years, presumably to check that circumstances haven't changed, but it should stop the demands for payment.

It stops nothing, the cycle of letters still continues.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Because the BBC doesn't rely on any one demographic. Given the almost limitless choice that both licence holders and casual TV viewers have, the BBC's ratings hold up pretty well. Much of the BBC's output is part of their public obligation yet the current government and other's since 2010 have done everything to make the BBC inviable by trimming the budget to make anything more than that as difficult as possible.

The bbc make enough money by what used to be bbc worldwide (an entity they conveniently merged into bbc studios, probably so they can continue to act all cash strapped), they can afford to make more, better shows, but don't.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

As far as I've heard they'll still remind you every few years weeks, presumably to check that circumstances haven't changed, but and it should won't stop the demands for payment.

Corrected that for you!

 

[GusB]

It stops nothing, the cycle of letters still continues.

Corrected that for you!

OKay, fair enough. I'll listen to the voices of experience!

 

[Non Multi]

Worth pointing out that these threatening letters, designed purposely to cause distress are actually written by copywriters in an ad agency.

 

[bspahh]

25 years ago the BBC was still producing original comedy, whereas ITV seemed to be concentrating on increasing the frequency of soaps (ITV were still producing great dramas 25 years ago and even today I think their dramas are much better than the BBC’s drama output).

Forward to today and both channels seem intent on showing as many quiz shows and reality TV programmes as possible. One recent Saturday evening’s TV viewing had a total of 6 hours of quizzes across both channels.

The BBC in particular seems intent with showing cookery programmes at peak times, and quite a large number of them too (there’s 90 minutes of cookery on BBC2 tonight).

This is the schedule for BBC1 on January 4th 1997

Schedule - BBC Programme Index

genome.ch.bbc.co.uk

The comedy is an episode of the Simpsons (great, original comedy, but not produced by the BBC), Some Like it Red (a US/Canadian import), Noel's House Party, Casualty and Match of the Day.

At midnight, there was the Frank Skinner show, where he interviewed Gene Wilder. On that https://www.chortle.co.uk/punching-ups/2018/01/23/38953/frank_skinner:_gene_wilder_hated_me says

Gene Wilder had such a bad time on Frank Skinner’s chat show that he sent a handwritten letter telling the comedian what a terrible interviewer he was.

The pair had an awkward encounter on Skinner’s show in 1997, with none of the comic’s gags landing with the Hollywood star.

Now Skinner has revealed: ‘Afterwards he sent me a handwritten letter saying it was the worst chat he’d ever done.’

And he admitted: ‘I think there was some misjudgement on my part. I had shown three clips from his films on the show – none of which had him in the scene. He didn’t take that well.’

This is the BBC1 schedule for last Saturday night
https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6h/2022/01/01 I don't like Mrs Brown's Boys, but lots of people do.

The overall viewing figures will be down from 25 years ago, but that is because the competition then was from Sky or a DVD/Video rental. There is a lot more choice for viewers now.

There is a lot more to the BBC than TV on a Saturday evening.

 

[Ediswan]

Worth pointing out that these threatening letters, designed purposely to cause distress are actually written by copywriters in an ad agency.

TV Licensing is operated by Capita. (Those here from the IT industry may know them by a slightly different name.)

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Have you informed them that you no longer require one?

Why on Earth would I tell any corporation my personal information?
Imagine if the AA ran letters through every door demanding proof that you lack a car.
Or if I needed to prove I haven't been fishing without a licence?
A fundamental part of justice in my mind is innocent until proven guilty, I know I am not watching live TV and I wouldn't want to watch Mrs Brown's Boys on Iplayer if they paid me.
The idea that they can effectively harass me and others in their own homes without any justification is beyond diabolical.
No TV Licence to normal people means "oh, they probably don't watch telly".
No TV Licence to the BBC means "Will have to send them threats until they pay up".

If I did send them the fact I don't watch live TV (note you are indeed allowed to use DVDs as I do, and also streaming services like Netflix which I don't use, without a licence), they would want to visit the house to confirm this, what person would invite untrustworthy strangers into their house who are eyeing up everything with the sole aim of finding evidence against you?
And the Data Protection Act means the BBC shouldn't be allowed to keep the information that you don't watch live TV for long anyway.

I really want to sue the BBC for this but they are above the law.
My last letter was on New Year's Eve, a big red envelope, with a transparent bit showing the words "Official Notice", this is purely to embarrass me in front of the postie, the letter inside was the same rubbish that half of my recycle bin is filled with.
On a funny note, the back of the TV threats has a message asking if you would like it to be sent in braile.

 

[AM9]

Why on Earth would I tell any corporation my personal information?
Imagine if the AA ran letters through every door demanding proof that you lack a car.
Or if I needed to prove I haven't been fishing without a licence?

You don't need to be in the AA if you vave /use a car. You can only be prosecuted for fishing without a licence if you are witnessed doing so of leaving the scene withoput a satisfactory explanation as to why you are carrying recently landed fish. These comparisons are red herrings, - even the fishing licence one!

A fundamental part of justice in my mind is innocent until proven guilty, I know I am not watching live TV and I wouldn't want to watch Mrs Brown's Boys on Iplayer if they paid me.
The idea that they can effectively harass me and others in their own homes without any justification is beyond diabolical.
No TV Licence to normal people means "oh, they probably don't watch telly".
No TV Licence to the BBC means "Will have to send them threats until they pay up"

If you are using any part of iplayer without a licence you can be fined. Saying you don't like any particular program isn't a defence for doing so.

If I did send them the fact I don't watch live TV (note you are indeed allowed to use DVDs as I do, and also streaming services like Netflix which I don't use, without a licence), they would want to visit the house to confirm this, what person would invite untrustworthy strangers into their house who are eyeing up everything with the sole aim of finding evidence against you?
And the Data Protection Act means the BBC shouldn't be allowed to keep the information that you don't watch live TV for long anyway.

The Data Protection Act permits the holding of information so long as it is needed by the organisation. There is no fixed time limit. The main requirement is that the information is held securely and not used for any purpose other than for what it was obtained.

I really want to sue the BBC for this but they are above the law.
My last letter was on New Year's Eve, a big red envelope, with a transparent bit showing the words "Official Notice", this is purely to embarrass me in front of the postie, the letter inside was the same rubbish that half of my recycle bin is filled with.
On a funny note, the back of the TV threats has a message asking if you would like it to be sent in braile.

If you have not used any broadcast TV services without a licence then you have nothing to fear.

 

[DarloRich]

It stops nothing, the cycle of letters still continues.

when I didn't have a license (for about 10 years) the letters stopped when I told them I didn't have, need or want a license. I must just be lucky.

OKay, fair enough. I'll listen to the voices of experience!

My experience is quite different. No issue once I told them I didn't need a license. In any event even if they did send me a letter I wouldn't be hoping mad like some posters here. Just recycle it and get on with your life. There is no need to go all freeman on the land! I wish getting a letter was all I had to get worked up about!

PS I bet most complaining about the BBC are using IPlayer

 

[ChrisC]

when I didn't have a license (for about 10 years) the letters stopped when I told them I didn't have, need or want a license. I must just be lucky.

My experience is quite different. No issue once I told them I didn't need a license. In any event even if they did send me a letter I wouldn't be hoping mad like some posters here. Just recycle it and get on with your life. There is no need to go all freeman on the land! I wish getting a letter was all I had to get worked up about!

These days many households do not watch any live tv, or indeed any tv content produced by the traditional terrestrial channels even on catchup. With Netflix and other streaming services being widely available I don’t think the enforcement of having a license is quite so strict as it was in the past. Thirty years ago if you had a tv in your house you were almost certainly watching live terrestrial tv as there was no alternative and therefore just about everyone with a tv receiver in the house required a license.

When my sister moved to live in the West of Scotland around 30 years ago, in the valley where she lived, surrounded by high mountains, there was no tv reception whatsoever. When Sky tv became available, the original Sky before Sky Digital, people in the area still had to have a tv license to watch it because it was classed as live tv. The fact that reception of anything from the BBC, or indeed any of the terrestrial channels was impossible made no difference. Therefore they had to pay Sky for their service and also the license fee for a service they could not receive. A few years later, once Sky Digital happened, all channels were then available by satellite.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

For the record I don't use Iplayer at all or in any way, not a single program on there worth watching at all.
The BBC do not deserve the the right to demand either information or cash from anyone who doesn't use their services, and they have no right to presume. Pensioners get these threats of a £1,000 and pay up even if they have no telly because they think they need one for a mobile phone, the wording in these letters is designed to make innocent people feel guilty.
Words like investigation are used many times in every letter to imply you are a criminal for not needing a licence.
If the BBC can't even be polite in their letters, they should not be allowed to operate in the way they do. Shut the evil company down, I won't miss anything about them that hasn't already been lost.

 

[AM9]

For the record I don't use Iplayer at all or in any way, not a single program on there worth watching at all.
The BBC do not deserve the the right to demand either information or cash from anyone who doesn't use their services, and they have no right to presume. Pensioners get these threats of a £1,000 and pay up even if they have no telly because they think they need one for a mobile phone, the wording in these letters is designed to make innocent people feel guilty.
Words like investigation are used many times in every letter to imply you are a criminal for not needing a licence.
If the BBC can't even be polite in their letters, they should not be allowed to operate in the way they do. Shut the evil company down, I won't miss anything about them that hasn't already been lost.

The BBC have a Royal Charter to operate and everything that they do is governed by that. If you don't agree with that then discuss any issue with your MP. If he/she doesn't agree with you then use your vote accordingly. If there aren't enough who agree with you and do the same you have to accept the democratic view of the majority. If you are not prepared to do so then I'm sure that there is a deset island where you can be king/queen, (and any unwanted mail will not of course bother you then).
Alternatively, you can post on social media platforms like this but it won't change anything.

 

[Typhoon]

For the record I don't use Iplayer at all or in any way, not a single program on there worth watching at all.
The BBC do not deserve the the right to demand either information or cash from anyone who doesn't use their services, and they have no right to presume. Pensioners get these threats of a £1,000 and pay up even if they have no telly because they think they need one for a mobile phone, the wording in these letters is designed to make innocent people feel guilty.
Words like investigation are used many times in every letter to imply you are a criminal for not needing a licence.
If the BBC can't even be polite in their letters, they should not be allowed to operate in the way they do. Shut the evil company down, I won't miss anything about them that hasn't already been lost.

I realise that the constant drip-drip of these letters must be irritating (to say the least) but would point out that the letters actually come from Capita rather than the BBC. Unfortunately I do not know whether the BBC chose Capita to administer the Licence scheme or it was told to use them. The letters actually say that the fine is up to £1000, that decision is made by the courts. The average fine paid in 2018, the most recent I could find with minimal effort, was £178. The neighbourhood I live in is predominantly lived in by the elderly, I do not know of anyone who thinks that ownership of a mobile phone requires a TV licence, in fact quite a few will know it doesn't because they cannot watch TV on their phone. There are also pensioners who could claim a free licence because of their income and the BBC was widely promoted that. I have read some of the letters they send out, you must have the complete set my now. If you are not going to tell them you don't have a TV then just put them in the recycling bin or bung them in a box to show how they are wasting money like I do with smart meter letters, nothing to get angry about. They will have every address in the country alongside a lot of other organisations. If they have more, it is probably because you have provided it at some time or have not anonymised it on the electoral roll. The mere fact that all they have done so far is write computer generated letters shows they have no evidence to show you are watching TV. 'Evil company', a bit strong. I can think of a few companies that I might be tempted to use that term for (some payday loans for instance) but the tone isn't much worse than I received from a utility company whose staff didn't pick up that a notification of a bereavement meant that the direct debit would stop. Personally I looked at what Netflix offers for a tenner a month and I couldn't find a single programme I would watch. So what, that's just me, each to his own.
Unfortunately, the BBC has services that it is obliged to provide but is not adequately remunerated for like the World Service so the licence fee has an inbuilt 'taxation' element in it.
There really is more to life than getting excited about automated aggressive letters and feel good that it is keeping your postal delivery service occupied.