MD
But that's not the crux of what you've argued.
Whatever your comments about Scotland, Wales and NI, you have argured that because 20% of the ENGLISH population lives in London, the rest should be virtually ignored despite contributing 80% of the ENGLISH licence revenue.
As for subsidising the Northern English regions, you will find that the London Assembly's subsidy from central government is grossly disproportionate to it's population when compared to the other English regions.
No that's not what I said, the national news should give preference to England, not London.
Why? Shouldn't stories be delivered because of importance, not relevance to people who don't care? If Scotland burst into flame, and on the same day, Gordon Brown exposed a love affain with David Cameron, I would expect the Scotland story to take precedence - because it is more important. I don't care where my money goes - as long as it makes good TV. If it helps fund a story for cake making in Berwick, as long as it's good for Berwick, I'm OK.
Well that goes without saying. I am just saying as a general rule, when there are no obvious priority stories.
bilky asko posted:
martinDTanderson posted:
StuartPlymouth posted:
martinDTanderson posted:
At a very basic level, the percentage of the bulletin for each nation, should be the percentage of the population compared to the rest of the UK as a whole.
But that's not the crux of what you've argued.
Whatever your comments about Scotland, Wales and NI, you have argured that because 20% of the ENGLISH population lives in London, the rest should be virtually ignored despite contributing 80% of the ENGLISH licence revenue.
As for subsidising the Northern English regions, you will find that the London Assembly's subsidy from central government is grossly disproportionate to it's population when compared to the other English regions.
No that's not what I said, the national news should give preference to England, not London.
Why? Shouldn't stories be delivered because of importance, not relevance to people who don't care? If Scotland burst into flame, and on the same day, Gordon Brown exposed a love affain with David Cameron, I would expect the Scotland story to take precedence - because it is more important. I don't care where my money goes - as long as it makes good TV. If it helps fund a story for cake making in Berwick, as long as it's good for Berwick, I'm OK.
Well that goes without saying. I am just saying as a general rule, when there are no obvious priority stories.
MI
As someone living in England I think it is important that viewers across the United Kingdom have an understanding of the important issues affecting all of the devolved nations. The decisions made in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland do have an impact on decisions made at Westminster.
My prime example being the smoking ban. Was it not England, who was the last nation to implement it. No doubt the implementation of it in Scotland and then the other nations, had an impact on the decision for Westminster to vote for the ban.
With regards to Northern Ireland, I think the coverage given by networked bulletins is awful. For a nation that never used to be out of the news due to the violence, why do we not hear about the policies of the administration their and the effect on the population - good and bad.
As for distributing the regional news element of the licence fee on a purely population basis I have to disagree. That would mean that London would get the largest cut and all the other regions would probably suffer. London benefits by being a larger population in a smaller environment. News gathering is a cost which is not based purely on population numbers but also on the geography of an area, and in particular the spread of people in the area. Not forgetting, that without a solid network of correspondents across the UK, network news would be less likely to pick up on original journalism.
Finally I do feel the news channel could do much more to bring stories from across the UK. Take a little bit of the focus off repeating the same stories hour after hour and show a bit more variety. Possibly at weekends they could do a fifteen to thirty (ish) minute summary from each nation, and a similar bulletin from across the English regions. These could clearly be pre-recorded and used as back half hour fillers.
My prime example being the smoking ban. Was it not England, who was the last nation to implement it. No doubt the implementation of it in Scotland and then the other nations, had an impact on the decision for Westminster to vote for the ban.
With regards to Northern Ireland, I think the coverage given by networked bulletins is awful. For a nation that never used to be out of the news due to the violence, why do we not hear about the policies of the administration their and the effect on the population - good and bad.
As for distributing the regional news element of the licence fee on a purely population basis I have to disagree. That would mean that London would get the largest cut and all the other regions would probably suffer. London benefits by being a larger population in a smaller environment. News gathering is a cost which is not based purely on population numbers but also on the geography of an area, and in particular the spread of people in the area. Not forgetting, that without a solid network of correspondents across the UK, network news would be less likely to pick up on original journalism.
Finally I do feel the news channel could do much more to bring stories from across the UK. Take a little bit of the focus off repeating the same stories hour after hour and show a bit more variety. Possibly at weekends they could do a fifteen to thirty (ish) minute summary from each nation, and a similar bulletin from across the English regions. These could clearly be pre-recorded and used as back half hour fillers.
PE
Pete
Founding member
I think if anything the nonsense in the BBC Have Your Say pages show how little the "english" understand about how scotland words. they all seem under the impression we already have free prescriptions which we certainly do not.
Perhaps if scottish politics was mentioned more in the national news people would be less ignorant and therefore more understanding that we don't just steal all their money and lavish ourselves with it.
Perhaps if scottish politics was mentioned more in the national news people would be less ignorant and therefore more understanding that we don't just steal all their money and lavish ourselves with it.
BR
I'm not quite sure what is wrong with the world, but for the second time today I find myself completely agreeing with Gavin.
Unfortunately though the result of this won't be anything like a Scottish Six or better reporting of Scottish and Welsh laws, but the addition of very annoying disclaimers at the end of every report telling viewers that it only relates to England and to head to bbc.co.uk/wedontcareaboutyou for info about the rest of the UK.
Unfortunately though the result of this won't be anything like a Scottish Six or better reporting of Scottish and Welsh laws, but the addition of very annoying disclaimers at the end of every report telling viewers that it only relates to England and to head to bbc.co.uk/wedontcareaboutyou for info about the rest of the UK.
MO
Brekkie, you took the words right out of my mouth! I've not had chance to read through all of the last few pages that have sprung up, but have skimmed through and find myself disagreeing with Martin.
His point that BBC coverage should be for the majority is simply wrong. The BBC has, because of "the unique way it's funded", a duty to cater for minorities, those that would be left out if media was purely commercial in this country.
I've no interest at all in regional TV, and have also spoke against the argument that the BBC is too London-centric before, quoting that more people live in London etc, but this was to do with minor points like London being featured on news studio backdrops etc.
The UK should be centred around it's capital city - where more people live - but that does not mean that the "provinces" should receive a second-class service.
I'd even go so far in saying that the BBC is such an important part of our lives, and it's responsibility so great therefore, that it's treatment of the Celtic fringe in the past has stoked feelings of separatism, and helped the setting up of the devolved legislatures (of which I am so opposed).
Brekkie posted:
I'm not quite sure what is wrong with the world, but for the second time today I find myself completely agreeing with Gavin.
Brekkie, you took the words right out of my mouth! I've not had chance to read through all of the last few pages that have sprung up, but have skimmed through and find myself disagreeing with Martin.
His point that BBC coverage should be for the majority is simply wrong. The BBC has, because of "the unique way it's funded", a duty to cater for minorities, those that would be left out if media was purely commercial in this country.
I've no interest at all in regional TV, and have also spoke against the argument that the BBC is too London-centric before, quoting that more people live in London etc, but this was to do with minor points like London being featured on news studio backdrops etc.
The UK should be centred around it's capital city - where more people live - but that does not mean that the "provinces" should receive a second-class service.
I'd even go so far in saying that the BBC is such an important part of our lives, and it's responsibility so great therefore, that it's treatment of the Celtic fringe in the past has stoked feelings of separatism, and helped the setting up of the devolved legislatures (of which I am so opposed).
BR
That's probably quite true in how the BBC treat coverage of the England football team for example - failing to acknowledge that their are parts of the UK who are not behind England. England being absent means for once viewers are getting coverage of "Euro 2008", not "England at Euro 2008".
Credit though that they do get it right with the rugby, especially in the Six Nations but also in the World Cup too, I've felt both the BBC and ITV cover them as "England" rather than "us" - though that's probably down to strong home nation involvement as well.
Moz posted:
I'd even go so far in saying that the BBC is such an important part of our lives, and it's responsibility so great therefore, that it's treatment of the Celtic fringe in the past has stoked feelings of separatism, and helped the setting up of the devolved legislatures (of which I am so opposed).
That's probably quite true in how the BBC treat coverage of the England football team for example - failing to acknowledge that their are parts of the UK who are not behind England. England being absent means for once viewers are getting coverage of "Euro 2008", not "England at Euro 2008".
Credit though that they do get it right with the rugby, especially in the Six Nations but also in the World Cup too, I've felt both the BBC and ITV cover them as "England" rather than "us" - though that's probably down to strong home nation involvement as well.
ST
I quite like that screensaver, does anyone have a copy? 
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/bbcss.jpg
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/bbcss.jpg
AJ
I'd just like to say full credit to the BBC this evening, I didn't see the start at 6 but I imagine NC stayed with Ben and Joanna to start as the result was imminent and James Lansdale seemed to hold incredibly well, much better than Sky's offerings from what I picked up on at the time - this coupled with the other breaking story about the security breach.
Meanwhile, Nick Robinson handling it live on Six was great as always and it seemed to flow well with the stories just emerging.
All on a day of no ITV Evening News, so good job!
Meanwhile, Nick Robinson handling it live on Six was great as always and it seemed to flow well with the stories just emerging.
All on a day of no ITV Evening News, so good job!