« Topics
1234...111213141516
AlexS747 posts since 19 Oct 2016
Central (East) Midlands Today
[quote="Riaz" pid="1172941"]

I'm also wondering whether the BBC should continue with Radio 1 or whether it's a relic from the late 20th century offering a service that can easily be covered by commercial and internet radio stations nowadays.

Have you got radio 1 and 2 confused or something? Radio 2 is really not needed with the alternative options but the commercial stations are extremely limited for younger people and the few that exist provide absolutely nothing in terms of useful news and current affairs or literally anything other than Love Island. Furthermore, the BBC already does little to attract those in the R1 target audience who after all have to be those targetted if the BBC wants to remain viable so closing it down is likely to be the final straw for many in my generation. If the BBC needs to save money it could slash its budget for high brow drama and documentaries pitched at a level the typical man cannot understand that is only watched by the middle classes who can afford sky and are well catered for elsewhere. It could also move its sports coverage away from middle-class sports such as Wimbledon and Equestrian and towards sports more popular with the working class that would cost a fraction in terms of rights etc.
1
Brekkie gave kudos
Gary McEwan3,421 posts since 23 May 2011
STV Central Reporting Scotland

I'd quite happily listen to Clyde 1 any day of the week over Radio 1.

I think Clyde 1 is a rare example of a heritage ILR station that's still broadcast mostly from its own area - most of the country doesn't have that luxury.

For now.


To be fair some broadcasts are networked from Clyde 1 and broadcast to the other Scottish Bauer Stations. Grant Thomson for example it networked out. Other than that we're still local.
james-20015,200 posts since 13 Sep 2015
Central (East) East Midlands Today
I'm also wondering whether the BBC should continue with Radio 1 or whether it's a relic from the late 20th century offering a service that can easily be covered by commercial and internet radio stations nowadays.


Anyone who suggests Radio 1 and commercial pop stations are the same has clearly never listened to one or the other.


The commercial stations actually play music, Radio 1 has far too much DJ waffle Razz
james-20015,200 posts since 13 Sep 2015
Central (East) East Midlands Today
If the BBC needs to save money it could slash its budget for high brow drama and documentaries pitched at a level the typical man cannot understand that is only watched by the middle classes who can afford sky and are well catered for elsewhere. It could also move its sports coverage away from middle-class sports such as Wimbledon and Equestrian and towards sports more popular with the working class that would cost a fraction in terms of rights etc.


What a load of nonsense.
Neil Jones5,509 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
If the BBC needs to save money it could slash its budget for high brow drama and documentaries pitched at a level the typical man cannot understand that is only watched by the middle classes who can afford sky and are well catered for elsewhere. It could also move its sports coverage away from middle-class sports such as Wimbledon and Equestrian and towards sports more popular with the working class that would cost a fraction in terms of rights etc.


"high brow drama and documentaries the typical man cannot understand"?
Ridiculous stereotyping if ever I heard it.

I can't understand or read Urdu/Punjabi, does that mean I should go and burn every Punjabi book at the library just because I "cannot understand" them?
Last edited by Neil Jones on 12 June 2019 10:01pm
Andrew13,727 posts since 27 Mar 2001
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
I'm also wondering whether the BBC should continue with Radio 1 or whether it's a relic from the late 20th century offering a service that can easily be covered by commercial and internet radio stations nowadays.


Anyone who suggests Radio 1 and commercial pop stations are the same has clearly never listened to one or the other.


The commercial stations actually play music, Radio 1 has far too much DJ waffle Razz

The commercial stations play a limited playlist back to back, very short links stringing out a snippet of gossip from a tabloid across about half an hour, one minute of news an hour mostly showbiz, and about twenty seconds of travel.

The BBC stations actually produce radio programmes, and that applies to 1 and 2 depending on your preference.
5
japitts, iee_reith and 3 others
  • Steve Williams
  • Pete
  • Brekkie
gave kudos
AlexS747 posts since 19 Oct 2016
Central (East) Midlands Today
If the BBC needs to save money it could slash its budget for high brow drama and documentaries pitched at a level the typical man cannot understand that is only watched by the middle classes who can afford sky and are well catered for elsewhere. It could also move its sports coverage away from middle-class sports such as Wimbledon and Equestrian and towards sports more popular with the working class that would cost a fraction in terms of rights etc.


What a load of nonsense.

ITV produce plentiful numbers of period dramas so there is simply no need for the BBC to make any. Some of the obscure BBC2 and BBC4 documentaries require degree level knowledge to fully understand and are therefore of no use to most people (one was actually pitched at such a level that it was considered equivalent to an academic article published in a journal as part of my degree). As for sport, there is absolutely no reason for the BBC to purchase anything that other FTA broadcasters are interested in such as Wimbledon (and there is no reason why the first round of the girls tournament, for example, deserves coverage in any case) and the FA cup final and certain minority interest middle class sports such as equestrian simply do not deserve or require coverage and if the minority of people interested are willing to pay they could increasingly choose to do so. The drama budget, for example, should be net zero with only programmes that can cover their costs of production through overseas and DVD sales being made as this content has absolutely no public service value and is directly competing with commercial broadcasters. The BBC should be focussing on serving audiences and types of programmes that are accessible to the majority while not being made by the commercial sector. Such areas include reliable and accurate journalism, factual programming and documentaries pitched at a level to be widely accessible (which is more the BBC one and Stacy Dooley level than the Horizon and BBC4 one), and sports that aren't being covered by the commercial sector.
AlexS747 posts since 19 Oct 2016
Central (East) Midlands Today
If the BBC needs to save money it could slash its budget for high brow drama and documentaries pitched at a level the typical man cannot understand that is only watched by the middle classes who can afford sky and are well catered for elsewhere. It could also move its sports coverage away from middle-class sports such as Wimbledon and Equestrian and towards sports more popular with the working class that would cost a fraction in terms of rights etc.


"high brow drama and documentaries the typical man cannot understand"?
Ridiculous stereotyping if ever I heard it.

I can't understand or read Urdu/Punjabi, does that mean I should go and burn every Punjabi look at the library just because I "cannot understand" them?

The more accurate anology would be complaining about a library with a large number of Punjabi and Urdu books, but an English language section that has nothing other than picture books aimed at toddlers, the odd gossip magazine mostly dating from 2008, and 400 copies of each of Shakespeare's plays.
Last edited by AlexS on 12 June 2019 10:05pm
Riaz614 posts since 6 Jan 2016
The BBC should be focussing on serving audiences and types of programmes that are accessible to the majority while not being made by the commercial sector. Such areas include reliable and accurate journalism, factual programming and documentaries pitched at a level to be widely accessible (which is more the BBC one and Stacy Dooley level than the Horizon and BBC4 one), and sports that aren't being covered by the commercial sector.


Would you say that Horizon back in the 1980s is generally too advanced for the BBC of today and tomorrow?

If yes, then is society of today on average less intelligent or less capable of understanding technical documentaries than society was back in the 1980s?
1
iee_reith gave kudos