TV Home Forum

New CBBC digital channels

(February 2002)

RW
RW
Quote:
moss on 10:00 am on Feb. 13, 2002
Quote:
RW on 9:48 am on Feb. 13, 2002
This is turning into a complete shambles; it's obvious that Ms Jowell does not understand anything about broadcasting and is not fit to be in her job.

Well, her reaction to Brass Eye showed us that! Smile
Indeed. But the alternative's no better - not only has the Conservative's media spokesman Tim Yeo has called for the rejection of BBC3, but he also made the absurd suggestion, for no apparent reason, that Radios 1 & 2 should be privatised!

What is it with politicians that they have to keep poking their noses in where they're not wanted? Why can't they just leave broadcasting to the broadcasters?

(Edited by RW at 11:33 am on Feb. 13, 2002)
MO
moss Founding member
Quote:
Mich on 11:28 am on Feb. 13, 2002
Quote:
moss on 10:00 am on Feb. 13, 2002
Well, her reaction to Brass Eye showed us that! Smile

Did she (and the media), actually see the show?!, oh the irony of their reaction!

Well, she only watched it after she commented... apparantly, saying 'Give me a couple of hours to see it and make my own judgement' is too hard for her...

I think the government have a responsibility to make sure the BBC and C4 remain public service broadcasters. But in general, as RW says, they should keep their noses out - as much as anything else, I really don't think they know what they're on about.

(Edited by moss at 11:43 am on Feb. 13, 2002)
NG
noggin Founding member
Quote:
RW on 9:48 am on Feb. 13, 2002

Well it would have been a couple of months if the useless Tessa Jowell and her shambolic Department of Culture etc had given the go-ahead this time round.  But despite the BBC having made a strong case for the channel in the consultation document, and been into minute detail about target audiences and programming, she's still asking for 'more information'.  This is turning into a complete shambles; it's obvious that Ms Jowell does not understand anything about broadcasting and is not fit to be in her job.


Quite worrying that the DCMS seem to be requiring more detailed schedule and programme details... It is NOT the DCMSs responsibility to get directly involved in scheduling, and decide on programme content for a channel, which worryingly is what it sounds like is happening... The BBC has to be able to retain editorial control - and this may not be the case if the DCMS do not like the CONTENT of some of the programme proposals, rather than the TYPE and RANGE of programmes proposed.

The DCMS should be basing their decision on proposed concepts for a channel - if the minister can't imagine what a channel will look like based on this and needs programme proposals... Maybe she shouldn't be working in the media regulation arena.

Personally I feel that there is a degree of trying to appear strong and independent by not agreeing with the BBCs proposals... The current minister has a laughable reputation in the industry after humiliating herself at a Q&A at the RTS Cambridge convention (where she showed she understood little of the current regulatory framework) and not doing too well in the Brass Eye debate (commenting before watching - very silly thing to do)

Why should 18-30s not have targeted public service content ? If they are not catered for, they will use fewer BBC services in the future, the BBC will be less important in their lives, potentially weakening the BBC, one of the more important cultural institutions in this country...

Grrrr....
RW
RW
Quote:
noggin on 11:54 am on Feb. 13, 2002
Why should 18-30s not have targeted public service content?
The government seems to be caving into the commercial broadcasters who obviously don't BBC3 to launch. They seem to have the impression that digital television is already saturated with youth entertainment channels, when it in fact isn't - there are really only two non-music channels that specifically target the 18-30 audience, Sky One and E4 (Channel 4 shouldn't even be counted as a direct competitor, it competes with BBC2 not BBC3, and ITV2 is just an ITV1 repeats channel).

Both rely heavily on imported material, with no commitment at all to news, documentaries (proper ones) or the arts. All this was spelt out in great detail in the BBC3 consultation document - but Tessa Jowell just can't get that through her head.
PE
Pete Founding member STV North Reporting Scotland
BBC Three:Choice.

This is Tyne Tess broadcating on Channel Three In The North East.


remember that?
CW
cwathen Founding member West Country (West) Spotlight
Well I did say it would be a silly thing to have a halfway house name, but I really think they should get something with 'Three' on it on the air at the same time BBC Four launches. So the renaming of Choice could make some sort of 'This is BBC Choice, the third BBC Channel' type statement until the real BBC Three launches.

And the old 'This is Tyne Tees Television, broadcasting on Channel 3 in the North East' line is very inaccurate. Channel 3 is a VHF channel which used to carry BBC Services. There was a brief attempt to rename ITV to Channel 3, so Tyne Tees was the 'Channel 3 Provider' but it never broadcast ON Channel 3.
PE
Pete Founding member STV North Reporting Scotland
Quote:
cwathen on 8:42 pm on Feb. 13, 2002

And the old 'This is Tyne Tees Television, broadcasting on Channel 3 in the North East' line is very inaccurate. Channel 3 is a VHF channel which used to carry BBC Services. There was a brief attempt to rename ITV to Channel 3, so Tyne Tees was the 'Channel 3 Provider' but it never broadcast ON Channel 3.


Would that make Channel 4 and Channel 5 wrong or is it the BROADCASTING ON bit that is the cardinal sin?
BE
Ben Founding member London London
It was the ITC who renamed ITV to Channel 3 (well the goverment)
CW
cwathen Founding member West Country (West) Spotlight
>BROADCASTING ON
It is the broadcasting on bit, because it doesn't broadcast on Channel 3, it just WAS channel 3. And I just hate the whole rebranding exercise of Tyne Tees. It was so incoherent. They make an ident (although I have to say it is a nice ident, and kicks the ass of the cold grey TTTV ident which preceeded) which reads 'North East 3' but then call the channel 'Channel 3 North East', but still refer to it as 'Tyne Tees Television' sometimes (and even put 'Tyne Tees Television' at the bottom of the ident.

It's like they couldn't quite go for a full rebrand to Channel 3 for Tyne Tees, and had to keep the name in somewhere.

And then to the other half of the Channel 3 empire, YTV. Which used a completely different ident and it's Channel 3 branding just consisted of a 3 briefly appearing - and disappearing on the animation. Everything was still 'on Yorkshire' in continuity announcements. So YTV didn't have it's identity taken away from them to the same extend.

And then when Channel 3 was scrapped after Granada bought out Yorkshire-Tyne Tees, they just went for a cheap re-edit of the C3 idents, which were actually used for longer than the originals. Both weren't particularly good. Tyne Tees gets a new ident and a third TTTV logo, which works OK when they use the short music but was boring with anything else. Meanwhile Yorkshire just got a change of background and the whole animation taken out, so the visuals of the ident just spins around and around and around and does nothing else, whilst still retaining a version of the jingle designed for the longer, with animation C3 ident. It was all a bit of a mess.
BB
BBC912
Yes it really **** es me off how the BBC are allowed to launch 2 kids channels which are so pointless when kids are at skool and not have one BBC channel dedicated to youth. The amount of kids material on the BBC at the moment is huge, the goverment no **** all about what people want to watch anyway!
'The BBC is increasing its children's output from about five hours a day on BBC1 and BBC2 to 30 hours a day across the four channels.'
OK fair enough I'm not a kid so I'm bound to complain but it seems their is more CBBC material accross the BBC cahnnels than anythink else at the moment.

Newer posts