Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What is your opinion on the quality of the content produced by the BBC and by ITV respectively, in the present time and also 25 years ago as a comparison?
This can include all fields; including journalism, reporting, news content, website content and quality, programming quality (reality, comedy, thriller, documentary, investigation etc).
What is your opinion on the quality of the content produced by the BBC and by ITV respectively, in the present time and also 25 years ago as a comparison?
This can include all fields; including journalism, reporting, news content, website content and quality, programming quality (reality, comedy, thriller, documentary, investigation etc).
What is your opinion on the quality of the content produced by the BBC and by ITV respectively, in the present time and also 25 years ago as a comparison?
This can include all fields; including journalism, reporting, news content, website content and quality, programming quality (reality, comedy, thriller, documentary, investigation etc).
The BBC web sites are some of the best media information outlets globally, - so much that other UK media sources perpetually complain about them as they just don't compare.
The BBC exports a great deal of it's drama and documentary content around the world, not only to english native speaking countries.
Both of the above comment should speak for themselves.
I do however despair that the BBC's journalistic standards have deteriorated in their attempts to compete with reduced budgets and in a marketplace where generally lower quality news and current affairs programming is becoming the norm.
I feel that 25 years ago the BBC was very professional and of high quality in its presentation and news content. They were also particularly good with comedy, documentaries and things like panorama back then. Nowadays they are too left wing; so as well as coming across as politically biased, the quality of much of its programming has suffered too - comedy especially, and cancel culture hasn't helped in this regard. However, I think the website is excellent and whilst it has always been very informative and professionally designed, this is an area where I think it has improved.
ITV have always been inferior as far as the last 25 years are concerned, but much of it was still reasonably decent back then - I don't think this is the case now.
I've always felt that BBC has been of better quality across the board, although ITV do have some very good dramas. There seems to be more variety of programming on the BBC too. Also, when the BBC produce something of real quality - it is usually superb.
In terms of the journalism, I've very rarely watched ITV news, or used their website. I would agree with others that the BBC isn't as good as it used to be, but it is still the best out there. I do use the BBC website as my main source of news.
I think a lot of ITV's issues stem from Margret Thatcher and her beef with Thames, this resulted in the change of the franchising rules to kick Thames. This resulted in companies being allowed to own multiple franchises and signalled the end of proper regional TV and now there is essentially only 3 companies running franchises where originally every franchise had to be run/owned by a different company.
As there was no competition in ITV programs became a case of "what can we make for the least amount of dosh" and unfortunatly the answer ther is, reality TV
BBC and ITV news coverage is generally good and politically unbiased, although governments of all colours tend to accuse them of bias when they fail to accept party policy as the absolute, undisputed truth. However, the BBC, for example, did sink to the level of the worst of the tabloids with, for example, sending helicopters above Cliff Richard's house, and the dubious tactics used to get that interview with Princess Diana.
Both have some, but not enough, good dramas. Both are obsessed with soaps & never-ending "continuing drama series" that are long past their sell-by dates, which should have been replaced by something newer & original many years ago.
There are still some good documentaries on both, but probably more on BBC than on ITV.
Unfortunately too many dramas & some documentaries tend to be somewhat spoiled by arty-farty types, with poor lighting, poor sound quality, and, all too often, intrusive foreground muzak that detracts from the speech content.
Neither have adequate coverage of a wide range of musical types/genres. Apart from classical music on Radio 3, most BBC Radio stations (including Local Radio) seem to think that "Music" means a "3 minute hit single (potential or actual)" -- anything else has near-zero chance of ever being played.
Comedy is very mixed and a matter of personal taste, and the BBC or ITV cannot be blamed for the lack of talent equalling, for example, The Two Ronnies, or Morecambe & Wise. There has always been a mixture of good & poor comedy on both channels, and I doubt that will ever change.
Sport coverage is worse, in that much sport coverage has been lost to money-laden subscription channels. Unfortunately that has also led to football, in particular, having been ruined by excessive transfer fees, and grossly obscene wages for some footballers. Only a few clubs, with multi-billionaire owners, have much chance of winning trophies; smaller clubs finding good players are likely to find them pirated (legally) by clubs with too much money.
Who watches TV? it is all streaming now. Watch what you want when you want not when the man wants you to watch stuff! ( that way you only watch good stiff!)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Most of the TV I watch these days is Channel 4 group programmes via streaming.
i can count bbc and itv programs I watch together on one hand, and have fingers left over!
If this thread runs long enough, there will probably be roughly equal numbers of claims that the BBC is either 'left' or 'right wing biased'. It's a consequence of asking for personal views. Throughout its 99 years, this has been a constant complaint in the real world outside, - and long may it be so. I presume that the BBC steers its course to sustain such a combined view from the public. It istrue however in the last 10 years that the government of the day has increasingly sought to control the BBC's commentary on UK politics, to the point that now the Johnson Government rarely gives interviews other than to try and get very narrow points of policy or political defence across, perferring to spread the message via unidirectional channels like Twitter and Facebook, i.e. Trump style.
Most of the top BBC journalists are however professional in their work and key presenters such as John Humprhrys (now retired) and Nick Robinson I have it on good authority are essentially 'one nation Tories', but they both challenge politicians across the political spectrum with equal vigour.
Indeed Nick Robinson was, as a student at Oxford, president of the University Conservative Association....and subsequently of the Conservative Party Youth Group.
Most of the TV I watch these days is Channel 4 group programmes via streaming.
i can count bbc and itv programs I watch together on one hand, and have fingers left over!
I tend to find all 4 very hit and miss on our smart telly, I find I can log in and pick something, watch the commercials then when the actual program I want to watch is due to show it won’t play.
I will say though Channel Four does seem to be rather obsessed with documentaries regarding bits we use to reproduce with a bit more compared too with other broadcasters.
Have to say the BBC is rather useful for other things like Radio 5, 6 Music and there’s some decent Podcasts on there for whatever your intrested in and whatever your age.
To compare BBC and ITV now with 25 years ago really needs no detailed analysis, especially in the former case. If you have a government which hates the idea of a national broadcaster that used to be revered throughout the free world broadcasting unbiased truth for the most part, you starve it of money while at the same time insinuating (or worse) that it constantly broadcasts propaganda against said government, its policies and the wonderful upstanding citizens who populate its Cabinet so selflessly. Regardless of what you think of the actual programmes, Christmas used to be a time when many new and extended versions of popular shows had a premiere, often with huge audiences, whereas now you have to put up with the thirtieth re-run of the Vicar of Drivel, never amusing in the first place. ITV now is a pale shadow of what it was 30 or 40 years ago, at a time when Granada in Manchester was known for so much more than Coronation Street in drama, current affairs/politics and comedy. Even 25 years ago local news was still not just present but, in some geographical areas, a force in the local community.
I think that the question is answered by what do I make a point of watching on BBC or ITV. The answer is very little, and certainly no new programmes. I enjoy Only Connect since it is so different to normal quiz programmes, but that has been around for at least 5 or 6 years - probably longer. There is no comedy to match Only Fools and Horses, probably because comedy has changed so much in case people take offence. There are the occasional drama programmes - e.g. Downton Abbey, and The Durrells - but these are again quite old.
Are there any new programmes I watch? Very ocassionally, but I can't think off the top of my head what the last one was.
As for news programmes, I can't remember the last time I watched either the BBC or ITV news - they no longer present facts, but give their slant on the facts. For example, climate change is stated as a given, but no opposing views are allowed to challenge it.
However I would say that for many the BBC would be better than ITV.
iPlayer and BBC Sounds allows you to pick up on a wider range of programming than you would otherwise be able to access just by watching/listening live or even recording.
As to is the BBC is biased, I'll give you the example of Nigel Farage objecting to the left leaning BBC allowing a primarily left leaning audience to ask bias questions, then getting a significant number of people clapping to agree with that point (i.e. something that a primarily left leaning audience wouldn't have likely done).
As such whilst there can be some bias it's likely to be fairly limited in scope.
I tend to think that quiz show on BBC tend to be harder, and particularly like Richard Osman's House of Games (if you ever want to try it out make sure you start on Monday episode).
As for comedy there's still plenty to be found, it's just that it's changed. Could there be scope for a "new Morecambe and Wise"? Almost certainly, however is it likely that comics would wish to do it? Probably not, however they are likely to do things like "would I lie to you?" or be involved in something like "not going out" or from slightly longer ago "Miranda" (although, as with any comedy, not to everyone's taste).
News trends to be fair, with even radio news trying to pick up on important details even though the "news" may only be about 4 minutes long. However go online and there's a wealth of information. Whilst it may not be as good as it could be, it's certainly a lot better than some other news content which can be little more than click bait and press releases interspersed with a LOT of adverts.
Kids programming from the BBC is a different league to that from other providers, with a focus on education. With many infant/primary schools using content like Numberblocks and Alphablocks within classrooms regularly and content like Horrible Histories and Operation Ouch! informing (to a high degree of accuracy) and entertaining in near equal measure. Whilst still allowing for just entertainment shows to be provided (Danger Mouse, Dennis the Menace, Clangers, etc.).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think that the question is answered by what do I make a point of watching on BBC or ITV. The answer is very little, and certainly no new programmes. I enjoy Only Connect since it is so different to normal quiz programmes, but that has been around for at least 5 or 6 years - probably longer. There is no comedy to match Only Fools and Horses, probably because comedy has changed so much in case people take offence. There are the occasional drama programmes - e.g. Downton Abbey, and The Durrells - but these are again quite old.
Are there any new programmes I watch? Very ocassionally, but I can't think off the top of my head what the last one was.
As for news programmes, I can't remember the last time I watched either the BBC or ITV news - they no longer present facts, but give their slant on the facts. For example, climate change is stated as a given, but no opposing views are allowed to challenge it.
Try Richard Osman's House of Games, it's very different to most other quiz shows with those with a lot of knowledge being able to show off but in a format that often means that those just guessing have a chance of a reasonable score.
On climate change, are their significant numbers of scientists who believe that it isn't in part man-made (even if that is just tipping the amount of carbon being produced over the amount that the world can cope with, even if that's smaller than the total emissions from nature)?
As even if (as an example) humans make 15 units of Carbon and nature makes 90 units but the world can cope with 100 units, then clearly it's up to us to reduce our emissions by 6 units to balance the books.
As to if it's just a natural cycle, then I'd rather we try to reduce our carbon emissions and find out that it was futile (especially given that includes reducing pollution and increasing wildlife, and so making the work a nice place to live in) than not and find out that it was needed and having lost species to future generations.
Part of me thinks that it's no worse than it used to be but nowadays we cherry pick the online sources that we want to consume news from, news that chimes with our biases re the political spectrum, so anything like a half hour TV broadcast with a broad range of views/opinions is going to seem "wrong" to us, because we aren't used to having out views challenged.
Twenty years ago we read daily newspapers so we consumed a variety of voices, a range of views, so we were used to having our own opinions challenged. Now though, we are becoming increasingly intolerant of information that doesn't fit neatly with our confirmation bias.
If you have a strong view on vaccines/ lockdowns/ Brexit/ Corbyn (as I suspect most people on here will, albeit often from different sides to me!) then you'd much rather read things that chime with these views - a newsreader who dares try to present things that are fairly neutral will sound like they are on the "other" side to you - in the way that anyone daring to question the Government at the start of Covid was portrayed as being 'Unpatriotic" rather than just asking legitimate questions
Personally, I keep a list on Twitter of various people who I'd normally disagree with - whether George Galloway on the left or Julia Hartley Brewer on the right - because it's important to know what other people are thinking - it's good to have my views challenged (rather than just reading things that'll tell me what I want to believe)
But the news is also competing for viewers. Once upon a time they'd have a "Labour" and "Tory" voices on the current affairs show - a level headed debate full of buzz words - but it's much more dramatic to have an argument between someone from Novara on the left and someone from a Tufton Street think tank on the right - it's like political Jeremy Kyle - the more extreme the views, the more chance that you'll either generate headlines that other shows pick up on or at least get lots of angry viewers/listeners triggered to text/tweet/phone to complain about the extreme views (Novara/ Tufton Street are very unrepresentative, but they are what you want to believe that the other side are like - the left wing get to characterise the right as being shills for shady businesses who want to privatise the NHS and remove all Human Rights whilst the right get to characterise the left as unpatriotic/idealistic Students who have never had a proper job and care more about Palestine etc than things which the modern day working class are focussed on
People complain about the BBC but to succeed the BBC needs to compete with other news outlets - if GB News have someone like Farage and ITV had someone like Piers Morgan then having a plodding middle-of-the-road debate between two political "suits" will be a turn off - so you need to make things a bit spicy - whether that is having interviewers trying to get a reaction or inviting guests who'll generate some controversy
It's also a lot easier to whip up a storm about some minor infraction. Let's say a BBC presenter failed to wear a poppy in the weeks before 11 November or photoshopped a Soviet-style hat onto Corbyn - it might have passed unnoticed ten years ago but now you can rewind/ snap an image on your phone/ upload/ other people can also see ... half an hour later you've whipped up hundreds of people into tweeting the BBC to complain (even if they never saw the original broadcast), which some journalist will spot and write a story about all of these "outraged" people - copy/paste a few quotes and you've got an article blaming the BBC
I use the BBC as a good source of online information though - the websites are very simple to use and none of the awkward adverts that make several other news sites almost impossible to browse on a phone - I wish others followed it's lead
The BBC still do some good (non news) programmes (good to see Only Connect and House Of Games mentioned above!) and plenty of decent radio. I'm struggling to remember much that I've watched on any ITV channel over the past decade though - Harry Hill's TV Burp used to be essential viewing but since then, there's the very occasional live football, I've watched a little Broadchurch/Unforgotten, I saw one episode of that Gary Lineker quiz a few weeks ago and... erm... I'm not sure that any ITV channel offers anything that I'd watch. At least the BBC have taken a risk with some things, but ITV seem to be mainly just reality fluff/ Ant'n'Dec/ soaps - predictable and safe - seems a long time ago that there was anything particularly "clever" (you'd never put The Krypton Factor on ITV nowadays!)
Channel 4/ Dave/ Netflix seem to offer a lot more IMHO
BBC and ITV quality is frustrating. I-Player offers a few times a year 4k / UHD programing, Wimbledon and usually Blue Planet. ITV I think only once have I seen 4k / UHD offered. When other channels regularly show sport in UHD / 4k and programing makers such as SKY and also quite a few YouTube channels broadcast In the higher definitions both BBC and ITV need to up their game.
BBC and ITV quality is frustrating. I-Player offers a few times a year 4k / UHD programing, Wimbledon and usually Blue Planet. ITV I think only once have I seen 4k / UHD offered. When other channels regularly show sport in UHD / 4k and programing makers such as SKY and also quite a few YouTube channels broadcast In the higher definitions both BBC and ITV need to up their game.
I don’t think most of us are bothered about what the content is broadcast in, just what is being broadcast in the first place.
I certainly couldn’t give a toss about pay per view sport and what it’s broadcast in.
Part of me thinks that it's no worse than it used to be but nowadays we cherry pick the online sources that we want to consume news from, news that chimes with our biases re the political spectrum, so anything like a half hour TV broadcast with a broad range of views/opinions is going to seem "wrong" to us, because we aren't used to having out views challenged.
Twenty years ago we read daily newspapers so we consumed a variety of voices, a range of views, so we were used to having our own opinions challenged. Now though, we are becoming increasingly intolerant of information that doesn't fit neatly with our confirmation bias.
If you have a strong view on vaccines/ lockdowns/ Brexit/ Corbyn (as I suspect most people on here will, albeit often from different sides to me!) then you'd much rather read things that chime with these views - a newsreader who dares try to present things that are fairly neutral will sound like they are on the "other" side to you - in the way that anyone daring to question the Government at the start of Covid was portrayed as being 'Unpatriotic" rather than just asking legitimate questions
Personally, I keep a list on Twitter of various people who I'd normally disagree with - whether George Galloway on the left or Julia Hartley Brewer on the right - because it's important to know what other people are thinking - it's good to have my views challenged (rather than just reading things that'll tell me what I want to believe)
But the news is also competing for viewers. Once upon a time they'd have a "Labour" and "Tory" voices on the current affairs show - a level headed debate full of buzz words - but it's much more dramatic to have an argument between someone from Novara on the left and someone from a Tufton Street think tank on the right - it's like political Jeremy Kyle - the more extreme the views, the more chance that you'll either generate headlines that other shows pick up on or at least get lots of angry viewers/listeners triggered to text/tweet/phone to complain about the extreme views (Novara/ Tufton Street are very unrepresentative, but they are what you want to believe that the other side are like - the left wing get to characterise the right as being shills for shady businesses who want to privatise the NHS and remove all Human Rights whilst the right get to characterise the left as unpatriotic/idealistic Students who have never had a proper job and care more about Palestine etc than things which the modern day working class are focussed on
People complain about the BBC but to succeed the BBC needs to compete with other news outlets - if GB News have someone like Farage and ITV had someone like Piers Morgan then having a plodding middle-of-the-road debate between two political "suits" will be a turn off - so you need to make things a bit spicy - whether that is having interviewers trying to get a reaction or inviting guests who'll generate some controversy
It's also a lot easier to whip up a storm about some minor infraction. Let's say a BBC presenter failed to wear a poppy in the weeks before 11 November or photoshopped a Soviet-style hat onto Corbyn - it might have passed unnoticed ten years ago but now you can rewind/ snap an image on your phone/ upload/ other people can also see ... half an hour later you've whipped up hundreds of people into tweeting the BBC to complain (even if they never saw the original broadcast), which some journalist will spot and write a story about all of these "outraged" people - copy/paste a few quotes and you've got an article blaming the BBC
I use the BBC as a good source of online information though - the websites are very simple to use and none of the awkward adverts that make several other news sites almost impossible to browse on a phone - I wish others followed it's lead
The BBC still do some good (non news) programmes (good to see Only Connect and House Of Games mentioned above!) and plenty of decent radio. I'm struggling to remember much that I've watched on any ITV channel over the past decade though - Harry Hill's TV Burp used to be essential viewing but since then, there's the very occasional live football, I've watched a little Broadchurch/Unforgotten, I saw one episode of that Gary Lineker quiz a few weeks ago and... erm... I'm not sure that any ITV channel offers anything that I'd watch. At least the BBC have taken a risk with some things, but ITV seem to be mainly just reality fluff/ Ant'n'Dec/ soaps - predictable and safe - seems a long time ago that there was anything particularly "clever" (you'd never put The Krypton Factor on ITV nowadays!)
Channel 4/ Dave/ Netflix seem to offer a lot more IMHO
I fully concur - an excellent post if I may say so.
I have a number of random points:-
1) Newspapers themselves have become more "extreme" with less political balance. For example the Telegraph and Guardian have always been at opposite ends of the political spectrum however they used to be less "opinionated" than they are now. They also have their own websites which reinforces their viewpoints. It therefore makes it difficult for TV (and radio) to present a neutral view without being challenged by one side or the other. The BBC was known as the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation by staunch remainers and the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation by avid leavers.
2) Forty or fifty years ago we only had three channels and they normally only broadcast for a few hours a day. Now, even without subscription channels, there are dozens of channels broadcasting 24/7. Filling this time with "decent" programmes is very difficult.
3) We are all getting older! The tastes nowadays are different to what they were decades ago. In my teens I was a fan of Monty Python's Flying Circus but my parents didn't see the point of it. I think this applies particularly to comedy. I watched (some of) Spitting Image recently. I found it crude and unfunny, not a patch on the originals.
4) A number of American drama series are now on other channels. Although by no means the most intellectual programmes I could always watch them if I had nothing else to do. For example, Bonanza, High Chaparral, The Virginian, Diagnosis Murder, Monk, Father Dowling Investigates, Starsky and Hutch even Dallas and Dynasty!
5) I personally like police series. However nothing has replaced programmes such as Morse, Touch of Frost, Dalziel and Pascoe, Foyles War etc. Only Line of Duty has come anywhere near them,
6) The number of films shown has dropped considerably.
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?
1) Newspapers themselves have become more "extreme" with less political balance. For example the Telegraph and Guardian have always been at opposite ends of the political spectrum however they used to be less "opinionated" than they are now. They also have their own websites which reinforces their viewpoints. It therefore makes it difficult for TV (and radio) to present a neutral view without being challenged by one side or the other. The BBC was known as the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation by staunch remainers and the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation by avid leavers
Agreed - I used to read both papers twenty years ago - and they'd have columnists who went against the grain of the newspaper, people who'd challenge your views (even if you didn't agree with them) - now though, the newspapers only preach to the converted, they give their readers what they want rather than what they need (if you know what I mean) - and they play off each other - e.g. the Guardian can portray the Telegraph readers as being rabid fox hunters who'd rather spent hundreds of billions on a Royal Yacht than solve homelessness whilst the Telegraph can portray the Guardian readers as dangerous communists who'd sell our gold reserves to pay reparations to Commonwealth countries
3) We are all getting older! The tastes nowadays are different to what they were decades ago. In my teens I was a fan of Monty Python's Flying Circus but my parents didn't see the point of it. I think this applies particularly to comedy. I watched (some of) Spitting Image recently. I found it crude and unfunny, not a patch on the originals
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff on BBC3 that I don't like or don't "get", but it's for nineteen year olds and I'm not a nineteen year old any more - I'm sure a different generation felt the same about The Young Ones etc!
4) A number of American drama series are now on other channels. Although by no means the most intellectual programmes I could always watch them if I had nothing else to do. For example, Bonanza, High Chaparral, The Virginian, Diagnosis Murder, Monk, Father Dowling Investigates, Starsky and Hutch even Dallas and Dynasty!
I suppose that the success of Netflix etc means that the big American shows are no longer feeding through to terrestrial television - e.g. if Game Of Thrones had been on telly in the 1990s then it'd have been on Channel Four at ten o'clock every Tuesday night (in the way that Twin Peaks etc were) - but now the streaming platforms hoard these shows so the BBC don't show these kind of popular programmes
5) I personally like police series. However nothing has replaced programmes such as Morse, Touch of Frost, Dalziel and Pascoe, Foyles War etc. Only Line of Duty has come anywhere near them,
I don't know whether the reduction in quality is due to changes to the Police (e.g. we know that the modern police couldn't sustain the mavericks like Morse - and whilst a drama needs a protagonist who deals with a wide variety of cases to keep plots from getting stale, the modern detective is more specialist in one type of crime - so there's a trade off between "drama" and "realism" (plus the fact that a lot of procedural stuff relies on technology that keeps changing, which makes it hard to write something because the cutting edge "CSI" stuff soon becomes mundane in the long period between drafting a script and your show getting on television)...
...or because television is a lot "safer" (we don't want to show a hard drinking copper because that'd be a bad role model... we can't have episode after episode where the culprits are certain racial groups...) - in the way that Bond has been "tamed" and can no longer be the promiscuous alcoholic who deals with a world of stereotypical "bad guys" - the shows that work nowadays reflect a more complicated world of wider societal problems and hard working public servant at breaking point, rather than just whisky fuelled car chases
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?
I've been watching some of the Christmas episodes of Top Of The Pops and it's interesting to see some of the big selling songs of (e.g.) 1987 that you'd never hear nowadays, even on Absolute 80s, the radio station that only plays songs from that era - meanwhile we have some songs that barely touched the top ten still getting used in films/adverts/ programmes to create 1980s nostalgia - it's the same with programmes - we focus on a handful of sitcoms like Only Fools And Horses but that was only a handful of episodes a year (Fawlty Towers was only a handful of episodes in total!) - so we get a very skewed view of how things actually were (in the way that three hundred days of the year are "overcast" but we rememberer the handful of heatwaves and snowstorms!)
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.
You are absolutely right. Take comedy, everybody quotes 'Dad's Army', 'Only Fools and Horses' and 'Fawlty Towers' but forgets the dross that was on at the same time because we watched one episode and gave up - a quick look at the 90's: 'Brighton Belles', 'Health and Efficiency', 'Land of Hope and Gloria', 'Sitting Pretty' and 'Trouble in Mind'.
News-wise, I only bother with local news (BBC - I can get through whole programmes from Meridian without them having a single piece relevant to me). For national I go on the BBC website so I only need to read about items that are relevant to me - not interested in 'opinion' by and large (and when I am only from those who know what they are talking about so I listen to The Briefing Room on R4, but not some motormouth MP or Minister).
Totally agree with the comments about 'House of Games' and 'Only Connect' (#15, #16, #17) although the latter needs concentrating on. I watch these to make sure my brain gets exercise and doesn't putrefy. 'House of Games' might have been initially shown on Dave but no other channel (too gentle for others), 'Only Connect' - no chance.
When I was working, I watched tv for relaxation, to turn off from work; now I am retired, I don't need that so watch much less. Regarding much lauded American series - no time for them, they go on and on; I watched parts of most episodes of one once, at the end only to find out 'what happened' - uncertain ending, 'new series', sorry, life is too short. They just seem to go on until the ratings drop when they have to come up with a manufactured ending. As far as I am concerned I can cope with Strike! - four episodes, much beyond that, boredom sets in.
... News-wise, I only bother with local news (BBC - I can get through whole programmes from Meridian without them having a single piece relevant to me). For national I go on the BBC website so I only need to read about items that are relevant to me - not interested in 'opinion' by and large (and when I am only from those who know what they are talking about so I listen to The Briefing Room on R4, but not some motormouth MP or Minister). ...
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.
Considering the competition now available from the likes of Netflix and Amazon (who don't have public service obligations to meet) I think the BBC still does well in providing a range of programmes for different audiences in the UK.
I don't watch that much TV but in any given week there's at least one comedy or drama series on the iPlayer website which I would consider worth my time. Comedy in particular is very subjective to individual taste but there's plenty of range from experimental (Mandy) to laughter track (Mrs Brown's Boys) to legacy panel shows (Have I Got News for You).
The BBC news can be a bit simplistic but it's ultimately aimed at a general audience and therefore does well at conveying "essential" news such as the changing Covid restrictions.
Considering the competition now available from the likes of Netflix and Amazon (who don't have public service obligations to meet) I think the BBC still does well in providing a range of programmes for different audiences in the UK. ...
By and large, much of Amazon's output is still US originated so it's audience is detwermined by how many are able to tolerate that style of entertainment.
I don't watch that much TV but in any given week there's at least one comedy or drama series on the iPlayer website which I would consider worth my time. Comedy in particular is very subjective to individual taste but there's plenty of range from experimental (Mandy) to laughter track (Mrs Brown's Boys) to legacy panel shows (Have I Got News for You).
... The BBC news can be a bit simplistic but it's ultimately aimed at a general audience and therefore does well at conveying "essential" news such as the changing Covid restrictions. ...
That might be the regular BBC1 news broadcasts, but there is a whole news channel for those that appreciate the breadth and depth of news stories and many things that don't make the BBC1 programming. Additionally, BBC has a weekly programe (Newswatch) where aspects of new reporting and related issues are reviewed and viewers can write in and make their views known. This programme is best viewed on iplayer. If anybody thinks that the BBC is politically biased they should watch some of the letters with opposing views read out on Newswatch. It makes any response from within the BBC superfluous as it is clear that calling a report 'biased' is most viewers' euphamism for 'not my view'.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
