BBC - "You make it what it is"

[Butts]

Who remembers that famous slogan from a few years back.

It is my contention that the BBC - for all it's faults - is by far the finest broadcaster in the United Kingdom bar none.

The Licence Fee represents fantastic value for money compared to any "subscription services"

Personally I feel The Government made a mistake in freezing the Licence Fee as this restricts the ability of Britains biggest broadcaster to fulfil it's public service remit.

I also disagree with moving some services from London to other areas of the UK just for the sake of it. However much I hate to admit it, most of the big names are in London whether politicians or entertainers.

The quality , breadth and depth of broadcasting from BBC1 through to Radio 4 and everything inbetween is unsurpassed anywhere in the World.

Put the BBC head to head with the same resources as ITV , SKY , or any of the others and they win hands down.

ps I do not work for BBC

 

[alanf]

Are you sure you don't work for them? They give Johnathan Ross £18m IIRC of our hard earned and put 30 year old drivel on constantly. What's good about it?

Alan

 

[SS4]

Are you sure you don't work for them? They give Johnathan Ross £18m IIRC of our hard earned and put 30 year old drivel on constantly. What's good about it?

Alan

Didn't he move to itv though? For an even more obscene amount of money.

Documentaries spring to mind.

More than anything you know an hour show on the BBC will last about 58mins compared to 42 elsewhere (meaning roughly one third of broadcast time is ads)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The BBC acts as a counterbalance to the utter drivel put out by other channels. Imagine what itv shows would be llike if it didn't have to compete?

The BBC is also obliged to show children programming and religious programming so often per week whereas their competitors do not

 

[Greenback]

The BBC certainly started paying 'celebrities' too much, but then that is only symptomatic of the country as a whole, where those at the top get richer and richer, often at the expense of those at the bottom.

At least the BBC has made efforts to end these obscene payments, unlike other companies, football clubs, and Network Rail(!!!).

As for drivel, well, there is far more that I want to watch or listen to on the BBC than on ITV or Sky. And all without constant interruptions by advert breaks as well. Thank God for the Beeb!

 

[Wyvern]

Thank God for the Beeb!

Hear hear. I very rarely look at anything else. We've just got Freeview round here -what a waste of money. The picture quality is no better and most of the extra stations are rubbish. On Dave a half hour repeat of QI for instance expands to an hour with adverts.

I do look at some of the extra channels - guess what? BBC3, BBC4 and BBC News on a Sunday morning.

Particularly important to me is the quality of the science programmes. Many of the programmes of course are produced by the Open University and, even if not, the Beeb is careful about what it puts out to prevent possible embarrassment to the OU.

It is also less likely to be influenced by commercial interests. Some time ago both BBC and Channel 4 showed programmes on ADHD. The Channel 4 placed heavy emphasis on medication. I'm not saying which was right or wrong but, when I checked the credits, the Ch4 programme was partly financed by a drug company.

 

[Mojo]

I don't watch much TV, but when I do it is nearly always on the BBC or Channel 4. It's very rare there is something of interest to me on Itv or Five.

I do however listen to the radio every day and it's Radio 2 all the time for me. A fair mix of talking, with some funny DJs, and good music.

Despite this, BBC's broadcasting of political matters frequently displays bias, for example Sarah Montague's introduction to the recent Conservative party conference on the Today programme.

 

[Zoe]

It's very rare there is something of interest to me on Itv or Five.

You must watch it so rarely to not have realized that it has changed its name again from Five back to Channel 5.

 

[Greenback]

Hear hear. I very rarely look at anything else. We've just got Freeview round here -what a waste of money. The picture quality is no better and most of the extra stations are rubbish. On Dave a half hour repeat of QI for instance expands to an hour with adverts.

Yes, most Freeview channels seem almost as bad as ITV for adverts. Almost, but not quite!

I do look at some of the extra channels - guess what? BBC3, BBC4 and BBC News on a Sunday morning.

Yes, we watch some of the extra Freeview channels, most often these days BBC4, less so BBC3. We watch Yesterday a bit, despite it's obsession with WW2 and Nazi's and More$ is useful for picking up stuff you might have missed previously.

It is also less likely to be influenced by commercial interests. Some time ago both BBC and Channel 4 showed programmes on ADHD. The Channel 4 placed heavy emphasis on medication. I'm not saying which was right or wrong but, when I checked the credits, the Ch4 programme was partly financed by a drug company.

That's something that people might not pick up on. I believe the regulations for programme content and sponsors has become less stringent recently than used to be the case.

 

[Spaceflower]

Hear hear. I very rarely look at anything else. We've just got Freeview round here -what a waste of money. The picture quality is no better and most of the extra stations are rubbish. On Dave a half hour repeat of QI for instance expands to an hour with adverts.

I do look at some of the extra channels - guess what? BBC3, BBC4 and BBC News on a Sunday morning.

Particularly important to me is the quality of the science programmes. Many of the programmes of course are produced by the Open University and, even if not, the Beeb is careful about what it puts out to prevent possible embarrassment to the OU.

It is also less likely to be influenced by commercial interests. Some time ago both BBC and Channel 4 showed programmes on ADHD. The Channel 4 placed heavy emphasis on medication. I'm not saying which was right or wrong but, when I checked the credits, the Ch4 programme was partly financed by a drug company.

Everything has commercial interests these days.

 

[kylemore]

My rule of thumb with the BBC "News" is to believe the opposite of what they're trying to get you to believe! Especially with these nasty little "Wars" we're involved in.
If the BBC say this character's a "Baddie" then he's probably a "Goodie".
If the BBC say this lot are "rebel freedom fighters" then they are almost certainly mercenary scum terrorising ordinary people ie. Libya.
So the BBC news is very educational to me but not in the way it's intended!

 

[SS4]

Yes, most Freeview channels seem almost as bad as ITV for adverts. Almost, but not quite!

In general you're lucky to get 3/4 of allocated time. For example Challenge are showing the BBC show Pointless. On BBC1 this program is scheduled for 45 minutes whereas on challenge it is scheduled for 60 minutes. No new content is added so the extra time can only be ads.
More likely is 2/3 and that's mainly for shows from the US

Even worse is when the cut the program to put ads in - as Dave do with top gear

My rule of thumb with the BBC "News" is to believe the opposite of what they're trying to get you to believe! Especially with these nasty little "Wars" we're involved in.
If the BBC say this character's a "Baddie" then he's probably a "Goodie".
If the BBC say this lot are "rebel freedom fighters" then they are almost certainly mercenary scum terrorising ordinary people ie. Libya.
So the BBC news is very educational to me but not in the way it's intended!

Yet the BBC remains the best domestic source of news. Al Jazeera provides some balance especially with regards the Middle East but again you have to take what they say with a pinch of salt.
I, for one, am just grateful Fox News has been let nowhere near freeview. It's as balanced as sticking two pencils up your nose, a towel over your head and saying wibble

 

[Zoe]

I, for one, am just grateful Fox News has been let nowhere near freeview. It's as balanced as sticking two pencils up your nose, a towel over your head and saying wibble

II once talked to someone that said that Fox News was too liberal.

 

[SS4]

I once talked to someone that said that Fox News was too liberal.

At least they have no more marbles to lose

 

[Greenback]

In general you're lucky to get 3/4 of allocated time. For example Challenge are showing the BBC show Pointless. On BBC1 this program is scheduled for 45 minutes whereas on challenge it is scheduled for 60 minutes. No new content is added so the extra time can only be ads.
More likely is 2/3 and that's mainly for shows from the US

Even worse is when the cut the program to put ads in - as Dave do with top gear.

I wonder how long some of the ITV programems actually are content wise? Channel surfing last night I was surprised to see the end titles of Midsomer Murders on the screen at 2154, a full 6 minutes before the scheduled start of the next programme!

Given the number of commercial breaks ITV1 has during the programme, how much of the two hour slot was actually given over to the show?

Yet the BBC remains the best domestic source of news. Al Jazeera provides some balance especially with regards the Middle East but again you have to take what they say with a pinch of salt.
I, for one, am just grateful Fox News has been let nowhere near freeview. It's as balanced as sticking two pencils up your nose, a towel over your head and saying wibble

The BBC is definitely the best source of news domestically! It is far less biased than any other TV news channel, or newspaper. In fact, as I have said before, I don't think it is biased politically - I think it is has a natural tendency to more closely scrutinise the government of the day than the opposition. This generally leads to every government trying to accuse the BBC of political bias, no matter what their colour!

 

[Zoe]

The BBC is definitely the best source of news domestically!

BBC News does seem to have dumbed down a bit in recent years though. I don't think BBC News for example should be covering the X Factor.

 

[SS4]

I wonder how long some of the ITV programems actually are content wise? Channel surfing last night I was surprised to see the end titles of Midsomer Murders on the screen at 2154, a full 6 minutes before the scheduled start of the next programme!

Given the number of commercial breaks ITV1 has during the programme, how much of the two hour slot was actually given over to the show?

I would go with three quarters so about 90 minutes was program. Unless it was a rhetorical question in which case ignore that

In addition too many shows spend a few minutes recapping what they've done thus wasting even more time. Sometimes it's obvious (previously on program X) or less obvious (where characters remind us in dialogue)

Then you get trailers. Your typical ad break appears to be Program, Trailer, Trailer 2, Ads, Trailer 2, Trailer, Program


I miss the "If you don't want to know the scores look away now" they used to have before Match of the Day back when they had the decency to then not read out the scores almost instantly anyway!"

 

[kylemore]

I'am always amused at the BBC's new's frequent sneering reference to such and such a country's "State Television" as if to say, well it's obvious propaganda then.
What's the BBC if it's not State Television!?
And please don't give me the usual guff about "independent board of governors" etc the British establishment have long been experts at that sort of window dressing!

 

[Greenback]

I would go with three quarters so about 90 minutes was program. Unless it was a rhetorical question in which case ignore that

It wasn't! I genuinely wonder how houch actual programme you would have got if you were Midsomer Murders last night! 90 minutes? 85? At a minimum I guess there would have been 8 advert breaks (at least 3 mins each), the early finish, a minute or two for the titles and theme music and goodness how long for pointless shots of quaint cottages and lush green fields!

I

n addition too many shows spend a few minutes recapping what they've done thus wasting even more time. Sometimes it's obvious (previously on program X) or less obvious (where characters remind us in dialogue)

Then you get trailers. Your typical ad break appears to be Program, Trailer, Trailer 2, Ads, Trailer 2, Trailer, Program

Yes, it's become just the US in the arly 1980's. On my first visit there I was appalled that there would be trailer - ads - titles and theme oosng- more ads even before the programme had started properly!

I miss the "If you don't want to know the scores look away now" they used to have before Match of the Day back when they had the decency to then not read out the scores almost instantly anyway!"

So do I!

I'am always amused at the BBC's new's frequent sneering reference to such and such a country's "State Television" as if to say, well it's obvious propaganda then.
What's the BBC if it's not State Television!?
And please don't give me the usual guff about "independent board of governors" etc the British establishment have long been experts at that sort of window dressing!

The BBC is not state TV, it's as simple as that. State TV is directly controlled by the state, ie the government, which usually has a Minister of Information or someone with a similar title. Executives and managers, producers and directors are employed directly by the Minister and their department, ensuring that the 'right' candidates are selected.

If the BBC was run in the same way, do you think anyone would be complaining it's biased against the Conservatives?

 

[kylemore]

It really depends what you think the "State" is.
Labour, Conservative and now the Liberal Democrats are simply different faces of the same thing, faces which it is prudent for presentational reasons to change now and again.
Whichever of these "Labels" is in "Government" the British Establishment is always ultimately in control.
So yes the BBC is more properly the creature of that establishment rather than the "Government" of the day.
I did'nt say it was'nt subtle.
I for one know with a certainty that I most certainly do not live in a "democracy" and I long ago gave up tripping down to the polling booths to vote for one or other of the "labels"!
The same people remain in charge no matter what.

 

[Greenback]

It really depends what you think the "State" is.
Labour, Conservative and now the Liberal Democrats are simply different faces of the same thing, faces which it is prudent for presentational reasons to change now and again.
Whichever of these "Labels" is in "Government" the British Establishment is always ultimately in control.
So yes the BBC is more properly the creature of that establishment rather than the "Government" of the day.
I did'nt say it was'nt subtle.
I for one know with a certainty that I most certainly do not live in a "democracy" and I long ago gave up tripping down to the polling booths to vote for one or other of the "labels"!
The same people remain in charge no matter what.

Well, there really isn't much to say to that! You are entitled to your opinions, however misguided they might be!

But I'll have a go anyway, because I enjoy a good discussion!

What is the British Establishment? It would appear to be seperate from the apparatus of state, at least on the surface, from what you say.

Has it got anything to dow ith The Freemasons? Or Opus Dei?

What advantage does htis shadowy entity obtain by 'controlling' the BBC?

 

[AlterEgo]

I have a tinfoil hat I can lend you.

The BBC is not "state television". It's a corporation paid for by television owners whose mandate is to provide unbiased TV coverage.

No organisation will ever be truly unbiased, but the BBC does a damn good job. The BBC even reports publicly on it's own internal wranglings.

 

[Smethwickian]

Given the number of commercial breaks ITV1 has during the programme, how much of the two hour slot was actually given over to the show?

Between 13 and 16 mins per hour of adverts on ITV1 peak times, I think - listings on catch-up services such as itvPlayer usually give the length of the real programme as it's usually without the ads.

There are Ofcom limits but they can be averaged out across certain periods so some of the most popular programmes can be lumbered with the absolute maximum number of adverts, hence recent complaints about the number of interruptions in Downton Abbey, for example, let alone the content of the ads concerned.

My usual argument with anyone who goes on about the TV licence fee being a 'compulsory tax' for the BBC, is that if they choose not to have a TV receiver (within the definition of the licensing law) they can still get lots of BBC services such as radio, the corporation's websites and iPlayer online, for free.

But they would then still be unavoidably paying for the rubbish pumped out by ITV and commercial radio - because it would be quite impossible to live any normal life without purchasing or subscribing to any product/service/bank/supermarket/insurance company/car maker etc etc etc which has ever advertised on commercial radio or TV - thus paying compulsorily towards the advertising budget concened.

And anyway, how many of those who moan about a few pounds a month for the licence fee would think nothing of stumping up loads more for a Sky subscription?

 

[Greenback]

Between 13 and 16 mins per hour of adverts on ITV1 peak times, I think - listings on catch-up services such as itvPlayer usually give the length of the real programme as it's usually without the ads.

There are Ofcom limits but they can be averaged out across certain periods so some of the most popular programmes can be lumbered with the absolute maximum number of adverts, hence recent complaints about the number of interruptions in Downton Abbey, for example, let alone the content of the ads concerned.[/QUOTE}

I had a sneaking suspicion that peak time shows had more and longer ad breaks!

any[/I] product/service/bank/supermarket/insurance company/car maker etc etc etc which has ever advertised on commercial radio or TV - thus paying compulsorily towards the advertising budget concened.

And anyway, how many of those who moan about a few pounds a month for the licence fee would think nothing of stumping up loads more for a Sky subscription?

I couldn't agree more!

 

[SS4]

I had a sneaking suspicion that peak time shows had more and longer ad breaks!

Definitely, you only need to contrast it with overnight TV. I've watched programs that have had no ads, just a trailer (this was challenge) but then it was 4:30am

 

[kylemore]

I have a tinfoil hat I can lend you.

The BBC is not "state television". It's a corporation paid for by television owners whose mandate is to provide unbiased TV coverage.

No organisation will ever be truly unbiased, but the BBC does a damn good job. The BBC even reports publicly on it's own internal wranglings.

Damn! I meant to get in with the Tinfoil Hat stuff first!
It really depends on how you see the world, I might be wrong.
But really don't you think it's just a wee bit funny how Labour/tory/lib dem essentially have exactly the same policies and mouth exactly the same cliche'd inanities, they might differ on trivialities for appearence sake, but the Blair/Cameron/Clegg clone model is the only show in town.

 

[jonty14]

What i find anoying is that Sky has adverts. You pay for Sky so there should be no adverts. I have German Sky and there are no adverts during the program.

 

[Seacook]

My usual argument with anyone who goes on about the TV licence fee being a 'compulsory tax' for the BBC, is that if they choose not to have a TV receiver (within the definition of the licensing law) they can still get lots of BBC services such as radio, the corporation's websites and iPlayer online, for free.

But they would then still be unavoidably paying for the rubbish pumped out by ITV and commercial radio - because it would be quite impossible to live any normal life without purchasing or subscribing to any product/service/bank/supermarket/insurance company/car maker etc etc etc which has ever advertised on commercial radio or TV - thus paying compulsorily towards the advertising budget concened.

And anyway, how many of those who moan about a few pounds a month for the licence fee would think nothing of stumping up loads more for a Sky subscription?

This is almost exactly what Sandi Toksvig and Andy Hamilton were saying on The News Quiz on Radio 4 last week. Of course the programme is produced by the BBC, but nevertheless it's true.

Life without Radio 4 would be dreadful - there are no equivalent commercial stations, and all other radio output added together does not provide the same range of programming - comedy, drama, news, documentary, comment, science, arts, Charlotte Green, politics, and Britain's longest running soap. The contrast between the Today programme and BBC breakfast news could not be more clear: the radio might be questioning a Cabinet minister while on TV they are interviewing an escapee from The Apprentice.

 

[Greenback]

Damn! I meant to get in with the Tinfoil Hat stuff first!
It really depends on how you see the world, I might be wrong.
But really don't you think it's just a wee bit funny how Labour/tory/lib dem essentially have exactly the same policies and mouth exactly the same cliche'd inanities, they might differ on trivialities for appearence sake, but the Blair/Cameron/Clegg clone model is the only show in town.

It's not funny at all really. They are all trying to get elected, which depends on winning the 'middle ground'. At least, that is the popular belief amongst political academics. Radical policies will not be popular with enough of the electorate.

It is a similar belief that a certain physical type and age is more popular with target groups. Hence the current trend towards white male early 40's types. This perception may change in the future.

 

[SS4]

Damn! I meant to get in with the Tinfoil Hat stuff first!
It really depends on how you see the world, I might be wrong.
But really don't you think it's just a wee bit funny how Labour/tory/lib dem essentially have exactly the same policies and mouth exactly the same cliche'd inanities, they might differ on trivialities for appearence sake, but the Blair/Cameron/Clegg clone model is the only show in town.

That's a political problem though

Our electoral system means that politicians need only cater to a small section of population (those in marginal seats) which is why most people will never see a politician even at election time. The party whip also suppresses freedom of expression inside the Commons but I certainly agree that we need the house of Lords to be elected.

 

[Oswyntail]

...I certainly agree that we need the house of Lords to be elected.

This is only vaguely off-topic, but, having watched the debate on the NHS Bill this week, I strongly disagree. Most of the speeches were reasonable and well-informed, weighing up the pros and cons admirably, with none of the confrontational heckling of the other house. The worst contributions were from former health ministers, who were hell bent on simply saying the other party is wrong. This is the true British Establishment at work - not the jumped-up oiks in the Commons - an amazing congregation of true experts working towards what is best for the country. And broadcast by the BBC!