The cheerleader comments were based on two observations - during a recent photocall in London, the actress playing her got all the photographers' attention and the PRs were frustrated they didn't want to take pics of anyone else. Secondly, comments published on p199 of ITV Teletext yesterday indicated that the said character was the main attraction for many.
I can appreciate landing myself in it here but it seems a reasonable suggestion the cheerleader is the public face of the show and my comments certainly not meant judgementally.
Back on topic, is there any possibility for BBC Three to be sold/handed-off to BBC World or UKTV to be run as a commercial channel?
It couldn't be called BBC Three if it were - as BBC branded channels cannot operate commercially in the UK (hence the UKTV rather than BBC TV branding on the UKTV commercial channels)
Of course if it were sold off it would no longer have a £93m / year (though ISTR the budget for the channel is now lower think) - as commercial funding wouldn't generate anywhere near enough revenue to fund it - so it wouldn't resemble the current BBC Three schedule.
Compare the level of original UK production vs repeats of shows from other channel and cheap imports on BBC Three and BBC Four with ITV2/3/4 and More4/E4 to see the difference
The BBC Trust has ruled out the closure of one of the corporation's digital channels but has told management it must implement annual efficiencies of 3% over the next five years as it attempts to plug a £2bn funding hole.
It's just so sickening to think that programme budgets are going to suffer, especially in factual and current affairs, when there is so much overmanning in non-programme making departments. What about marketing executives, media planners, diversity officers and all these other pen-pushers whose wages would be more justifiably pumped back into programming? I think we know who Charlie Brooker would be first to sack...
If the BBC didn't get the licence fee settlement they wanted it serves them right in a way. They have all the money they need, they just choose to waste it on administrative non-essentials.
It's just so sickening to think that programme budgets are going to suffer, especially in factual and current affairs, when there is so much overmanning in non-programme making departments. What about marketing executives, media planners, diversity officers and all these other pen-pushers whose wages would be more justifiably pumped back into programming? I think we know who Charlie Brooker would be first to sack...
If the BBC didn't get the licence fee settlement they wanted it serves them right in a way. They have all the money they need, they just choose to waste it on administrative non-essentials.
A lot of non-programme making staff have already been cut. The BBC is a large organisation, and like any large organisation needs a sizeable amount administation staff to keep it working. Some posts as well, such as diveristy officers are important, and most likely required under employment law. It can't all be run by one lady in an office called Jane who does the paperwork, accounting, marketing, rights, legal issues etc etc ad nauseum, so that everyone else can spend time making hundreds of hours of programming every day care free. In an ideal world, yes, but not in this one.
