This is patently untrue and the monster that is Granalton is now doing all it can to get rid of local programming.
With you there, Corin. Just take one look at the national viewing figures for local news. ITV only get more in one region. That's down to them nationally sucking the life, and money, from their news programmes.
...or that they are up against the BBC 6 o'clock news, which is the highest rated in that timeslot.
Yep - though you could argue that stronger, better funded ITV regional news should be able to stand against this...
After all the highest rated news slot in Britain is the regional news at 1830-1900 - which comprehensively beats the ITV Evening News at 1830. This doesn't show up in the conventional BARB ratings as the BBC regional shows are all considered separate shows - but if you add up the ratings the Beeb local news is very strong...
I like the idea of canning BBC3 and giving greater clarity to the sort of content that's broadcast on BBC1 and BBC2.
I also like the idea of making BBC News more efficient in terms of not having many different programmes reporting the same stories (duplicity = bad).
But I think BBC4 is necessary...the "boring," "unpopular" stuff that's on Four is exactly the sort of stuff that a public broadcaster is meant to provide...stuff that "market forces" would never allow on the air.
I like the idea of canning BBC3 and giving greater clarity to the sort of content that's broadcast on BBC1 and BBC2.
I also like the idea of making BBC News more efficient in terms of not having many different programmes reporting the same stories (duplicity = bad).
But I think BBC4 is necessary...the "boring," "unpopular" stuff that's on Four is exactly the sort of stuff that a public broadcaster is meant to provide...stuff that "market forces" would never allow on the air.
I think you mean duplication, rather than duplicity
However surely a public service news broadcaster with as many differing outlets as the BBC has should provide news that is relevant and accessible to all of its potential audiences (and all of the people who pay for it)
Therefore Radio 1's Newsbeat, and Radio 4's Today have to cover some of the same stories, albeit in totally different ways, so that they are relevant to their network's differing audiences.
Similarly the BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three and BBC Four news programmes will tackle the same stories with totally different treatments and angles - which is surely a good thing - rather than being fed the same homogenous reports on all outlets?
What do you have to do to get a prison sentence for TV licence evasion?
Quote:
But I think BBC4 is necessary...the "boring," "unpopular" stuff that's on Four is exactly the sort of stuff that a public broadcaster is meant to provide...stuff that "market forces" would never allow on the air.
I'm sorry, this is the sticking point for me. BBC4 should not exist. It doesn't provide a good public service if the money of millions is being spent on running a complete broadcasting operation watched by a few thousand (indeed sometimes, watched by so few people that it registers no viewers at all so it's technically possible that they are broadcasting to thin air). Public services providing something which commercial operations can't is only one half of the story and is certainly not the be all and end all of providing a good public service.
I've droned on (especially in recent months) about the reasons why I disagree with BBC4 but in a nutshell, minority audiences must accept that they are just that - a minority. It is being a good public service by providing them with programming they enjoy, but providing them with a complete channel is stretching the public service concept too far - truly embracing this concept would result in their being BBC1-BBC5000.
Do I advocate getting rid of the style of programming on BBC4? Of course not. But it should be on a a once a week slot on BBC2. It should not be a 7 day a week channel.
Really, most pro BBC4 lobyists back it just because of the content, believing that because it's a high brow arts channel that somehow makes it more worthwhile than a channel providing any other sort of programming.
And the biggest thing I have against the channel is that it came at the expense of a genuine public service channel (BBC Knowledge, the only free channel to provide decent high quality programming all day - which catered to a much broader range of tastes and could have thrived if only it received decent promotion) which wouldn't matter if only a few thousand watched it because it cost peanuts to run.
I'm not knocking the fee, but you have got to ask what the BBC actualy provide now, that is different from any other commercial channel?
In my business, if you provide a service that you think might make a profit, the taxpayers purse is prevented from providing a similar service at the taxpayers expense...........etc , etc,
I'm sure the BBC could survive any such change, and probably appear better at the end of it. In addition, it would be free of the meddling of the board of govenors, who only have knghthoods and royal engagements on their mind.
While you're at it you ars*hole , why don't you privatise the railways as well , I'm sure that would work superbly.
I think the license fee should remain and the BBC remain unchanged in its structure and aims for at least the next decade, this is necessary as the BBC is a benchmark for the quality of broadcasting on radio and television at present.
The continued decline in ITV and the still inferior programming from Satellite and cable leaves the BBC as the sole provider of consistently reasonable quality programming .
BBC television provides news , entertainment and arts programmes which compare to and mostly excel similar commercial programmes on the various multi-channel platforms. The BBC local radio stations are generally good and in the case of the national stations Radio one to five , they are excellent.
I would’t be happy to see changes in the BBC output until standards in the quality of commercial broadcasting improved.
My one concession is that for someone to get the full value for the cost of the license they need to get a digital receiver and have access to the internet otherwise they are shortchanged. The changeover from analogue is too slow and tens of millions are missing out on what the license money has provided.
[b].
The continued decline in ITV and the still inferior programming from Satellite and cable leaves the BBC as the sole provider of consistently reasonable quality programming ..
Well that's an odd statement. Why don't you name that "consistently reasonable quality programming?" Doesn't quite make grammatical sense either; and have you considered that the competition between BBC and ITV is good for TV?
On radio, the National stations would become commercial, with the exception of Five live, which would convert into a news/sport only station. Local Radio would remain as now.
Can you really see commercials on Radio 4? There'd be riots!
The problem with talking about splitting up the BBC and adding commercials to certain bits of it is that inevitably people often go "keep the bit of the BBC I use regularly ad-free and shove commercials on the rest". The number of times I've heard politians go on about putting adverts on Radio 1/1 Xtra/BBC3 but keeping Radios 4/2/5 live free of them is getting a tad ridiculous.
While you're at it you ars*hole , why don't you privatise the railways as well , I'm sure that would work superbly.
Is there really any need for resorting to that ? He's as entitled to his opinion as you are, and doesn't deserved to be abused in such a manner for expressing it.
