noggin's posts, page 231

15,946 search results, most recent first

NG
noggin Founding member

UKTV Presentation

London Lite posted:
Has anyone else noticed a slight improvement to the PQ on the SD version of Gold? Makes me wonder if UKTV are down converting the HD feed.


For SD programmes that would potentially make things worse, not better, as you'd be down-converting an up-convert, which tends to knock the edges off the picture a bit (though this may make the content slightly easier to compress at a given bit rate I guess, assuming you don't get any aliasing introduced, which has the opposite effect)

(The BBC accepted this quality loss when they moved to BBC One SD being a down convert from BBC One HD, mainly because fewer and fewer SD shows are broadcast)

For HD originations you are only moving the downconversion process from upstream to downstream - so I guess a quality change for that would be a result of the downconverter being of different quality? (Downconverting HD to SD is a non-trivial exercise - and arguably just as, if not more, difficult than up converting - as you have to handle aliasing properly)
NG
noggin Founding member

BBC axe Crimewatch

Charlie Wells posted:
Trying to move it to a series condensed into x consecutive weeks doesn't really work for the main show. Maybe someone decided to do that hoping/knowing that ratings would fall, and they could then use it as an excuse to axe the series. The daytime Crimewatch roadshow may well work in it's current format, however I assume being pre-watershed it limits the cases and what they can show.


Moving to a short run of weekly series must have made it significantly cheaper to make though. Rather than having a production team working all year on a monthly show, they could crew up for a weekly show for just a short period, with crew working just for Crimewatch.

I suspect the reality was that in the monthly format there was a lot of production team down-time, if they didn't have other shows to work on in the same department, and that made the show too expensive to be justified, or too difficult to make for the budget...
NG
noggin Founding member

Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

Riaz posted:
The point that I was trying make is that BBC TV wants to be everything.

1. A public service broadcaster

Agreed
Quote:

2. A gargantuan institution

Don't agree - I don't think the BBC has any particular ambitions about being a gargantuan institution, if it did why did it sell off :

Its Playout arm
Its Transmission arm
Its Technology arm
Its OB trucks
Its Magazines
and why did it spin off it's studios and production departments into separate companies (ripe for sale), and close large chunks of its online presence.

It also now makes fewer and fewer programmes itself. The BBC, as an institution, is getting smaller not bigger. (It's headcount dropped by 4% between 2010-11 and 2015-16)

It has a healthy income, but when you compare the funding of PSBs elsewhere in Europe, it is by no means the best funded. Germany is a place to look for 'gargantuan' institutions...

Quote:

3. A finger in the pie of almost every genre of TV programme imaginable


The BBC's mission is still to educate, inform and entertain. It has a duty to deliver programmes that the people who pay for it want to watch, as well as deliver shows that wouldn't be delivered by others. Why shouldn't it delver shows in most genres (it doesn't do big cash prize game shows)?

This is the eternal balancing act for European PSBs - you have to be popular but also public service to justify your existence. If you look across Europe - the successful ones are still getting healthy viewing figures, delivering high quality public service content - but importantly delivering it to a healthy sized audience, and not becoming a worthy ghetto.

Quote:

4. A flag carrier for Britain on the global stage


The 'Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation' bit of the BBC is important - and has been a big part of the BBC's international role for many years. (Talk to people who lived through WWII on continental Europe to realise how important) Flag carrier doesn't feel like the right word to me. It's about providing unbiased, factually accurate information, again with some entertainment and education, particularly to those areas that don't have it available domestically.

Whether the BBC 'wants' to do some of this is slightly muddled with the requirement to do it legally.

Quote:

PBS only ticks box 1.


PBS is a very basic PSB, unrecognisable from most mainstream European PSBs. Thankfully Europe still values public service broadcasting - unlike the US.
NG
noggin Founding member

Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

Inspector Sands posted:
Rkolsen posted:

There really isn’t one national broadcaster. There would be some that you could call true legacy broadcasters NBC & CBS. However if you wanted a BBC style newscast you’d go with PBS’s Newhouse. <SNIP>

All very interesting I'm sure but I don't see what the coverage of the various networks in the US has to do with being a 'flag carrier'.


Yep - and my original point wasn't about 'flag carriers' (what ever they are in a news context) they were about strong, national public service broadcasters.

NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox are not PSBs. CNN isn't a PSB. PBS is the main US TV PSB - and is a very cut-down, budget operation, with smaller audiences to match.
NG
noggin Founding member

Hurricane Ophelia

Markymark posted:
Gareth E posted:
BBC One NI have had a red ticker running alongside the BBC Breakfast clock since 7.30am, giving general information on school/college closures and directing towards Radio Ulster/Foyle, next Newsline bulletin.


Is the ticker in HD ? I noticed on a recent visit to Ireland, the 'BBC Newsline' DOG seemed to be HD, while the programme itself was upscaled SD


How recent? I thought the BBC NI News studio had been upgraded to HD a year or two ago, around the time they also got the VR stuff. (Leaving Wales as the only BBC Nation with an SD news operation)
NG
noggin Founding member

Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

Rkolsen posted:

I’m all for gender equality.

Seeing the stats in the management roles significantly makes the 50% that much more attainable. How ever the 2020 time frame is quite ambitious. That being said I thought it would be much lower.

How will they go about meeting that goal is what puzzles me. Will they suddenly reconsider all current managers or make them redundant? Will they had more “senior management” positions - which correct me if I’m wrong the BBC was under fire for having too many managers.


Snr management positions have quite high levels of 'churn' - so that will probably allow for a lot of reorganisation.
Quote:

Also important is the pay. Say a woman is hired from outside the BBC for position that became available. Will she automatically get the same pay the previous manager made (male or female) or will she be placed in the same grade but at a lower step* until she has some tenure?

Most very Snr Managers are in ungraded positions (i.e. they are above the highest grade), those who are in the highest graded position will negotiate their salary in a similar way. At that level its always a negotiation (albeit now with more information)...
NG
noggin Founding member

Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

Riaz posted:
noggin posted:
Yes - and if you aren't careful you end up with public service being taken to mean 'stuff that commercial companies won't make money doing' and only that...


That's a bit of an extreme opposing viewpoint. It's questionable whether the BBC can continue to justify calling itself a public service broadcaster in the future if it continues as the gargantuan institution that it is today.

Gargantuan?

Compare it to ZDF and ARD in Germany (count the number of TV stations and radio service they operate...)? Back of envelope calculation suggests that their income in 2016 was €8bn (€6bn for ARD, €2bn for ZDF). BBC income for the same period? £3.5bn...

Compare it to any of the major US broadcasters ? Compare it to BSkyB, Netflix or Amazon.

Perspective is useful. The BBC is a well funded public service broadcaster, and still seen as a good model for others...

Quote:

There is also another question whether it should focus on providing a public service in Britain or whether it should be a flag carrier for Britain on the global stage.


It can do both - though the change to all licence-fee funding (excluding World 2020 stuff) has made this trickier and was a backwards step (not of the BBC's doing)

Quote:

Quote:
You only need look at the US to see what that leaves you with...


There are people worldwide who admire PBS.


Yes - and many also admire the BBC. PBS is close to irrelevant to a large proportion of the US public (it isn't actually serving that large a public). The BBC is very relevant to a large number of the UK public...
Last edited by noggin on 15 October 2017 2:05pm - 2 times in total
tmorgan96 and bilky asko gave kudos
NG
noggin Founding member

Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

Riaz posted:
fanoftv posted:
Sounds like the already restrictive budget will have to be stretched even further unfortunately.


Come on, the BBC has masses more money than most privately owned TV channels which broadcast in Britain and an almost guaranteed source of income.


Though it also runs a lot more services - so you need to compare like-with-like. Pence per hour, or pence per viewer hour, figures are probably more useful than overall budgets in that regard.

Quote:

The question which hangs over the BBC is what material really should qualify for public service broadcasting.


Yes - and if you aren't careful you end up with public service being taken to mean 'stuff that commercial companies won't make money doing' and only that...

You only need look at the US to see what that leaves you with...
NG
noggin Founding member

James Harding leaving BBC News in New Year

mdtauk posted:
Not every issue is Black and White, so the one from each side doesn't always apply. We need pro-active fact checkers, during interviews not just after. Context should be given to the figures and statistics put out there too.


To be fair - the latter role should be that taken by a well-briefed interviewer in many situations...
NG
noggin Founding member

James Harding leaving BBC News in New Year

bilky asko posted:
Omnipresent posted:
The BBC also does need to take a serious look at its approach to impartiality. The traditional format of putting up two opposing views for issues like Brexit and climate change is not serving the public well and giving air time to fantasists like Lord Lawson.


How would you do it instead?


I don't think you can lump Brexit and Climate Change into the same discussion.

Climate Change discussions should be framed around the scientific consensus. If you have credible scientists who disagree on the science, make sure audiences are aware that they are a minority. It gets much more difficult when you just put up an out-and-out denier with no credible qualifications or authority on the subject other than being 'well known'.

Same goes for Antivaxxer discussions and celebrities...

Brexit is a very different issue. Complicated - but in other ways.
cityprod, London Lite and bilky asko gave kudos
NG
noggin Founding member

Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

Wow...

Jon posted:
How would you feel if you missed out on a job due to your gender, despite being the person who in the eyes of the employer who will do the best job?


If you've ever been involved in appointing people to positions - it's very rarely that straightforward. It's relatively rare for one person to be an obvious 'best person for the job'. It does happen, but more often you are in a situation where you have a number of people who are all potentially able to fulfil the role, but with different strengths and weaknesses.

Ensuring you have a representative workforce isn't about penalising individuals, it's about not penalising groups who have been heavily discriminated against in the past. When you are in the situation of having a clear winner - that person will almost certainly continue to be appointed. When you have multiple candidates suited to the role, then at that point you are likely to look at how representative your workforce is, and take that into account when making appointments.

Quote:

I think you put together a good but ultimately flawed argument. Gender in itself simply isn’t an attribute and attributes are what should be looked at when giving someone a job role.


I beg to differ. Gender is still very much used as a discriminating factor in some areas - particularly in relation to maternity issues.

Quote:

And your argument also falls short because if the corporation had to give a particular job role to a female, simply because they are female. It may mean a candidate losing out who could give better representation to women, therefor female licencse payers lose out.


And it may not. That's a hypothetical, dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument. Similarly you could say that appointing a woman who doesn't like other women could be a bad move. That's not how life works...

Quote:

You talk about people who have a good education, as if it in itself isn't an attribute, if it has resulted in a more intelligent person, it is an attribute. You can't get away from that. It's a bit like (admittedly a public school boy) Michael Gove's “the British public have had enough of experts” statement.


No - I talked about people who went to Oxbridge. Not specifically about people who had a good education. Please don't put words into my mouth. It's entirely possible to get a good education away from Oxbridge, or a good education at Oxbridge. (I went to Cambridge - so I'm a Turkey voting for Christmas..). However the 'establishment' (not just the BBC) has historically had huge bias towards appointing people like themselves. Imagine you went to Reading or Aston University, were well qualified for a job, but went to an interview up against someone who had gone to the same Cambridge college as one of the interviewers. In times gone by that would have put you at a disadvantage. It shouldn't have, and companies should ensure it doesn't.

Replace 'went to Cambridge' with 'went to public school' (again no guarantee of a good education) or 'grew up on a council estate' or 'is black'... Same rules apply. Without some form of training or management - people will often appoint people more similar to themselves. It's psychology.

Quote:

Also this mandatory target would put a white woman who grew up in privilege in a better position in terms of getting a job, than a black man who grew up on a council estate with more to give to the role. How do you justify that?


Only if you have mandatory targets (you usually don't) and only based on one 'attribute' (which you usually don't).

The reality is that companies monitor their workforce make-up, and have guidance for interviews and appointments aimed to redress weaknesses in their workforce representation of groups of people that are under represented. It's not a case of 'we have to appoint a woman' or 'we have to appoint someone from a BAME group', it's far more nuanced than that. To suggest otherwise is to over simplify to the point of caricature.
NG
noggin Founding member

Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

itsrobert posted:
I have to say I agree with Jon on this one.

As a male university librarian working in a very female dominated environment, I still am against any type of quota. I would be uncomfortable with the idea of being employed on the basis of my gender and I am sure there are many women who feel the same. A person should be employed on the basis of the skills and competencies they have to perform the job for which they are applying. Gender should not play a part in that decision. If a woman happens to be the best candidate, then employ the woman. If it's a man, then employ the man.

The point about women's education being worse than men's is completely inaccurate. We're not living in Victorian times - girls and boys are entitled to the same basic free education - anything else is up to the individuals and their family circumstances. Statistically, it is a well known fact that girls out-perform boys in all the national tests. And I can say that at the university I work at, there are far more female students than male - they outnumber boys by something like 6 to 1. So the argument that women receive an inferior education is completely without foundation.


In a perfect world I'd agree with you - but the world isn't perfect. People, generally, prefer employing people like themselves (c.f. public school, Oxbridge, white, male etc.). Without some form of intervention, I believe, it becomes very difficult to change this behaviour. Quotas are a way of addressing this bias - until the pool of people appointing becomes more uniform, and then, hopefully, they aren't needed.

I agree they shouldn't be needed - but when you are applying for a job with one arm tied behind your back I can see why they are. (You only need look at what happens when identical job applications are made in male vs female, 'European' vs 'Asian' names etc. to see it's still a massive issue)