TV Home Forum

How about Regulation within tv?

(August 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
IS
Inspector Sands
Chie posted:
I think the 100s of new channels have a devaluing effect on TV as a whole, and personally I won't regard a channel as a proper TV channel until it's been around for at least 25 years. Until then, it's pretty much a non-channel as far as I'm concerned.


Eh? so in your eyes we only have about 8 'proper' TV channels - BBC1/2/ITV/C4/Sky 1/MTV/Discovery/CNN?
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 12 August 2009 1:33pm
IS
Inspector Sands
Markymark posted:

The rot started over 20 years when the BBC launched daytime TV services, how did they finance those ? By cutting back on some of the once excellent evening programming. Horizon, Panorama, Man Alive, etc.


I'm not sure that's exactly the case or at least it's not that cut and dried

The cost of producing and broadcasting TV has decreased quite dramatically since the early 80's with the advent of cheaper video equipment, then computers and the end of the power of the unions reducing staffing costs. You get more TV for the same amount of money
DV
DVB Cornwall
Inspector Sands posted:
Markymark posted:

The rot started over 20 years when the BBC launched daytime TV services, how did they finance those ? By cutting back on some of the once excellent evening programming. Horizon, Panorama, Man Alive, etc.


I'm not sure that's exactly the case or at least it's not that cut and dried

The cost of producing and broadcasting TV has decreased quite dramatically since the early 80's with the advent of cheaper video equipment, then computers and the end of the power of the unions reducing staffing costs. You get more TV for the same amount of money


... which might be the reason for the diminished quality of some content, and it's editing and production, if the costs are that much lower the care taken in both production and editing can become slipshod.
MA
Markymark
Brekkie posted:
And to be fair, most of the channels which seem to generally be considered the biggest waste of space (shopping, quiz, casino channels etc.) don't actually run advertising, so culling them wouldn't make any difference.


Except it would provide more bandwidth to improve the technical quality of the remaining channels.
IS
Inspector Sands
DVB Cornwall posted:

... which might be the reason for the diminished quality of some content, and it's editing and production, if the costs are that much lower the care taken in both production and editing can become slipshod.


No, that's not what I was getting at. You can get the same, and in many cases better results with much equipment a fraction of the cost of 20 years ago.

Edit suite in the 1980's: http://www.vtoldboys.com/images/es7.jpg
Edit suite in the 2000's: http://www.euphonix.com/artist/news/pressimages/product/euph_artist_final_cut_3000.jpg

The modern version can do much more than it's 80's ancestor, takes up less space and requires a less skilled person to operate it. Of course there is a lot of TV done on the cheap but there's a place for that too

Computers have changed everything, especially in terms of staffing. You can run a news programme for example on a fraction of the staff needed 20 years ago. That doesn't mean that the technical quality has got worse, in fact it's probably got better in many ways and it allows for things like 24 hour news
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 12 August 2009 3:27pm - 2 times in total
IS
Inspector Sands
Markymark posted:
Brekkie posted:
And to be fair, most of the channels which seem to generally be considered the biggest waste of space (shopping, quiz, casino channels etc.) don't actually run advertising, so culling them wouldn't make any difference.


Except it would provide more bandwidth to improve the technical quality of the remaining channels.


There's no shortage of bandwidth on satellite, channels get the bandwidth that they pay for.

On DTT it is limited but the fact is that such channels pay for themselves. Advertising will only go so far and those that have alternative revenue sources will take the slots that no advertiser funded channel will want to take
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 12 August 2009 3:27pm
RM
Roger Mellie
A NUJ steward (who worked in ITV regional news) once said to me that television is different from other businesses when it comes to regulation, because you are making a "cultural product". I can see his point, how we regulate (or not) depends how much we want PSB in this country, I believe: After all the definition of PSB given by Ofcom is: "[Broadcasting] that reflects and supports cultural activity in the UK".

I think it would a shame if the BBC was the only PSBer, and we took the Murodch view for commercial channels; that they are there for profit only, and PSB is "outdated" in modern Britain. Although there is the worry that regulation may mean micro-management, we certainly don't want to end up with a North Korean system (let's not give Comrade Brown any ideas eh Wink )

The question is, how many channels would we set aside for "quality"/PSB programming, how many other commercial channels we would allow on a laissez-faire basis Confused

Newer posts