BO
Also, does anyone know if this broadcaster has any english language news pages?
Madrid bombs & Spanish general election
Sorry to deviate from the topic, but does anyone know if a news stream from the Basque broadcaster Eitb is available anywhere?Also, does anyone know if this broadcaster has any english language news pages?
BO
Very true. The great irony of the character was that the bigots loved him, and the PC brigade hated him. Johnny Speight dedicated his life to railing against racism and bigotry.
Absolutely. I remember Speight being interviewed and commenting that he was approached in some café by an ancient east londoner and told "I love your show, especially the things you say about the coons". Speight replied that the point was to laugh at ignorant racist ******* like him.
Till Death Us Do Part
Quote:
Very true. The great irony of the character was that the bigots loved him, and the PC brigade hated him. Johnny Speight dedicated his life to railing against racism and bigotry.
Absolutely. I remember Speight being interviewed and commenting that he was approached in some café by an ancient east londoner and told "I love your show, especially the things you say about the coons". Speight replied that the point was to laugh at ignorant racist ******* like him.
BO
Central - huge job losses @ Birmingham & Nottingham
Although this seems yet another blow for regionality, this closure could really benefit Central News East. Their operation is currently laughably run-down and dated, with betacart still being used as the primary playout device! So, a move to a smaller more modern base in Nottingham would enable central east to have totally modern tapeless facilities, rather than the current 1980s hotch potch of failing equipment!
BO
Here in Central land, the setup is slightly different:
1) Pres in Birmingham recieves a totally clean feed of the itv news from ITN.
2) The Clean feed is directly fed from Birmingham to the sub-regions.
3) Presentation control is handed to the sub-regions by pres, with the east, west and south in control from the beginning of Central News (18:00h) until the beginning of the national weather 18:59.
For example, in the east, the team in Nottingham take the feed from ITN and choose when to cut to them. So, in the Central regions, the galleries of the respective sub-regions ARE the pres department for the news hour!
ITV News Relaunch
Quote:
We're cut to air automatically by LNN, along with everyone else. We hear the ITN talkback so we know when its coming. You just have to be ready... otherwise tough luck! We don't control any of our opts ourselves.
Here in Central land, the setup is slightly different:
1) Pres in Birmingham recieves a totally clean feed of the itv news from ITN.
2) The Clean feed is directly fed from Birmingham to the sub-regions.
3) Presentation control is handed to the sub-regions by pres, with the east, west and south in control from the beginning of Central News (18:00h) until the beginning of the national weather 18:59.
For example, in the east, the team in Nottingham take the feed from ITN and choose when to cut to them. So, in the Central regions, the galleries of the respective sub-regions ARE the pres department for the news hour!
BO
By using the clock idea, the BBC would be re-attatching itself to its past and also be providing something which is useful in itself. Finally, the clock idea wouldn't necessarily have to be boring/dull - different backgrounds could be used, or the clock could be super-imposed over a blurred still of the next programme's first frame. Finally, for some programmes, a simplistic VT clock could be used in a similar way - giving the channel a clean and 'hands on' feeling. But no more bloody people idents!!!
Oh yeah, btw, heggasy also needs to go urgently - the woman is a cretin of the highest order, obsessed with pulling absolutely everything BBC ONE screens downmarket, and stifling truely innovative ideas.
What Should Replace The BBC1 Dancers
I really can't understand why BBC ONE doesn't just use a clock or coming next caption to precede programmes; every other network has abandoned this simplistic approach in an attempt to gain more viewers by trying to make their pres 'trendy' and hip. To me, this idea seems flawed, because the pres usually overwhelms and distracts the viewer so much that it causes networks to lose viewers, thus actually defeating the initial objective for presentation!By using the clock idea, the BBC would be re-attatching itself to its past and also be providing something which is useful in itself. Finally, the clock idea wouldn't necessarily have to be boring/dull - different backgrounds could be used, or the clock could be super-imposed over a blurred still of the next programme's first frame. Finally, for some programmes, a simplistic VT clock could be used in a similar way - giving the channel a clean and 'hands on' feeling. But no more bloody people idents!!!
Oh yeah, btw, heggasy also needs to go urgently - the woman is a cretin of the highest order, obsessed with pulling absolutely everything BBC ONE screens downmarket, and stifling truely innovative ideas.
BO
In my opinion BBC4 will only become more succesful if it broadcasts all day, doing what BBC Knowledge did during the day and do what it does now in the evenings. I know this cannot happen as due to restrictions on bandwidth, but surely somebody can make this happen one day.
Absolutely. Although it would probably be impractical on Freeview, I really can't understand why this doesn't happen on sky. Even repeating the previous nights programming would be better than NOTHING! Also, it would, in effect, double the 'value' of the channel; most probably gaining equal or more viewers in the day because it would be the only intellectual choice available.
Finally, I totally agree that the B&W license should be abolished: it is an incredibly easy way to evade paying the full amount, and therefore should be abolished immediately.
TV Licence Raise
Quote:
In my opinion BBC4 will only become more succesful if it broadcasts all day, doing what BBC Knowledge did during the day and do what it does now in the evenings. I know this cannot happen as due to restrictions on bandwidth, but surely somebody can make this happen one day.
Absolutely. Although it would probably be impractical on Freeview, I really can't understand why this doesn't happen on sky. Even repeating the previous nights programming would be better than NOTHING! Also, it would, in effect, double the 'value' of the channel; most probably gaining equal or more viewers in the day because it would be the only intellectual choice available.
Finally, I totally agree that the B&W license should be abolished: it is an incredibly easy way to evade paying the full amount, and therefore should be abolished immediately.
BO
If the BBC wanted to encourage these sort of programmes, it should have done what they did in the old days and started a special programme which piloted them on BBC2. (eg Comedy Playhouse, Storyboard etc) They certainly don't need a whole channel to do it.
In a way I agree, but with 18 different transponders used to broadcast each BBC ONE region on sky, surely one transponder broadcasting a totally unique channel is justifiable? Especially considering that some of it is also screened on BBC TWO.
TV Licence Raise
Quote:
If the BBC wanted to encourage these sort of programmes, it should have done what they did in the old days and started a special programme which piloted them on BBC2. (eg Comedy Playhouse, Storyboard etc) They certainly don't need a whole channel to do it.
In a way I agree, but with 18 different transponders used to broadcast each BBC ONE region on sky, surely one transponder broadcasting a totally unique channel is justifiable? Especially considering that some of it is also screened on BBC TWO.
BO
Firstly, BBC4 shouldn't exist. There just aren't enough viewers using it to justify it. Secondly, how much more 'innovation' can happen with BBCi? If you mean wasting more and more money on gimmicky 'interactive TV' services, then I hope they do get reigned in.
Initially, BBC Four seems like a waste, but in context of it's service to the rest of the BBC, it is a great asset. By this I mean that it can be used as a testing bed for many programmes which would otherwise never be commissioned for fear of being too obscure or high-brow. Without BBC Four, insightful, intelligent and fresh programming like 'Travels to The Axis Of Evil', 'Meet the Stans', 'Art Safari' and 'QI' wouldn't exist, or for that matter, fill BBC 2's schedule. Also, possibly the most hilarious programme ever, Curb Your Enthusiasm, wouldn't be available in the UK without Four.
I thought the archive was actually a gross mis-quotation on the part of BBC News, and it will actually be limited to clips from a handful of popular shows? That doesn't justify however many more millions they will get out of this £5 price hike. And why is 'newer and better digital encryption' worth spending licence fee money on? The BBC by definition are free (except for the licence fee). Why would they bother researching encryption (and don't say 'to stop people in other countries watching' because they seem quite happy for that to happen - and have even spent god knows how much adapting the licence fee funded bbc.co.uk into 'UK' and 'World' versions)? And in any case afaik the BBC have never nor ever intend to develop encryption technologies.
Firstly, whilst I was wrong about the extent of content on the archive, it still is set to be a great and empowering service, in that anyone with a reasonably fast internet connection won't ever have to record any BBC programmes again, as the BBC is set to make available all programmes for, I think, two weeks after they are aired.
Secondly, I didn't mean that the money would be used to develop encryption to scramble signals for viewers outside the uk, but instead encryption in the sense of MPEG 2 etc.
What alone? You mean paying for BBC4, a channel which no one wants
As mentioned earlier, I and many others believe that BBC Four is certainly worth the money, and would honestly argue that after it's recent programming achievements, deserves more.
Sorry about this. I was quite vague, but it is logical to presume that with more money the BBC will be able to invest more heavily in R&D - better digital encryption standards to suceed MPEG-2 being a rough example.
Again, sorry to be impolite, but that is a pretty weak argument. Making the BBC Archive freely available online is one of Dyke's passions, and usually Dyke's demands are satisfied!!
Well, it is good value for money. The vast majority of 'poor people' - i.e those living in council housing and/or needing income support, seem to be able to afford cigarettes, alcohol and/or sky, which cost far more annually than the BBC. Also, I disagree that students are any more injusticed than anyone else - many friends at uni go out frequently, smoke, and buy drugs, so I fail to see how £127 per annum is such a terrible price to pay for a constant source of entertainment, news and documentaries. If anything, poor students and people benefit most from the BBC.
TV Licence Raise
Quote:
Firstly, BBC4 shouldn't exist. There just aren't enough viewers using it to justify it. Secondly, how much more 'innovation' can happen with BBCi? If you mean wasting more and more money on gimmicky 'interactive TV' services, then I hope they do get reigned in.
Initially, BBC Four seems like a waste, but in context of it's service to the rest of the BBC, it is a great asset. By this I mean that it can be used as a testing bed for many programmes which would otherwise never be commissioned for fear of being too obscure or high-brow. Without BBC Four, insightful, intelligent and fresh programming like 'Travels to The Axis Of Evil', 'Meet the Stans', 'Art Safari' and 'QI' wouldn't exist, or for that matter, fill BBC 2's schedule. Also, possibly the most hilarious programme ever, Curb Your Enthusiasm, wouldn't be available in the UK without Four.
Quote:
I thought the archive was actually a gross mis-quotation on the part of BBC News, and it will actually be limited to clips from a handful of popular shows? That doesn't justify however many more millions they will get out of this £5 price hike. And why is 'newer and better digital encryption' worth spending licence fee money on? The BBC by definition are free (except for the licence fee). Why would they bother researching encryption (and don't say 'to stop people in other countries watching' because they seem quite happy for that to happen - and have even spent god knows how much adapting the licence fee funded bbc.co.uk into 'UK' and 'World' versions)? And in any case afaik the BBC have never nor ever intend to develop encryption technologies.
Firstly, whilst I was wrong about the extent of content on the archive, it still is set to be a great and empowering service, in that anyone with a reasonably fast internet connection won't ever have to record any BBC programmes again, as the BBC is set to make available all programmes for, I think, two weeks after they are aired.
Secondly, I didn't mean that the money would be used to develop encryption to scramble signals for viewers outside the uk, but instead encryption in the sense of MPEG 2 etc.
Quote:
What alone? You mean paying for BBC4, a channel which no one wants
As mentioned earlier, I and many others believe that BBC Four is certainly worth the money, and would honestly argue that after it's recent programming achievements, deserves more.
Quote:
apparant research into encryption which they will not use (and you have just decided they are doing)
Sorry about this. I was quite vague, but it is logical to presume that with more money the BBC will be able to invest more heavily in R&D - better digital encryption standards to suceed MPEG-2 being a rough example.
Quote:
and 'access the entire BBC archive' just won't happen any time soon.
Again, sorry to be impolite, but that is a pretty weak argument. Making the BBC Archive freely available online is one of Dyke's passions, and usually Dyke's demands are satisfied!!
Quote:
And don't bleat on about value for money. It's all well and good to prattle on about how cheap the licence fee is, but the majority of people doing that are also people who earn so much that they don't notice it. To most people, the licence fee is a considerable burden, and ways of reducing it must be found, not year on year above inflation price rises.
Well, it is good value for money. The vast majority of 'poor people' - i.e those living in council housing and/or needing income support, seem to be able to afford cigarettes, alcohol and/or sky, which cost far more annually than the BBC. Also, I disagree that students are any more injusticed than anyone else - many friends at uni go out frequently, smoke, and buy drugs, so I fail to see how £127 per annum is such a terrible price to pay for a constant source of entertainment, news and documentaries. If anything, poor students and people benefit most from the BBC.
Last edited by boring_user_name on 11 November 2003 7:14pm
BO
Surely, this alone justifies the extra money. What I mean is that eventually being able to freely access the entire BBC archive will be truely empowering, and offer long term savings for everyone.
TV Licence Raise
Although the increase is quite substantial, it is needed to enable channels like BBC 3 and 4 to have a decent budget, and allow the BBC to continually innovate with services like BBCi, New and better digital encryption, and in the future, the FREE internet archive.Surely, this alone justifies the extra money. What I mean is that eventually being able to freely access the entire BBC archive will be truely empowering, and offer long term savings for everyone.