TV Home Forum

Soham Verdict - how the Networks have reacted

(December 2003)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
:-(
A former member
BBC LDN posted:
c@t posted:
Bloody hell. Clear off back to reading the Guardian, noggin.


It's not like you actually care either way about the issue of signing anyway.

If the BBC had cleared its usual signing slot, you would undoubtedly have been the loudest protestor at the Beeb's abandoning of one of its few, true public service obligations. The fact that it stayed with it didn't deter you from having a pop anyway. It amuses me that you attack others for supposedly failing to have opinions of their own, when the only consistency of your own opinions is that they must be vehemently anti-BBC.

You hate the BBC. We get the message. So why don't you p-ss off back to watching Sky News?


Ah but does c@t watch Sky News between the hours of 06:00 and 08:00 every Sunday? Wink

Those of you who don't and can use BSL, give it a try Very Happy
:-(
A former member
I REALLY think the moderators had better think very carefully about this thread, because what started as a discussion about TV coverage of the Soham murder trial verdicts has degenerated into a "debate" which seems to be edging towards verbal abuse of the disabled. Gentlemen, it's over to you!
LU
Luke
CHRISTY THE ALMIGHTY posted:
I REALLY think the moderators had better think very carefully about this thread, because what started as a discussion about TV coverage of the Soham murder trial verdicts has degenerated into a "debate" which seems to be edging towards verbal abuse of the disabled. Gentlemen, it's over to you!


As far as i can see, it seems to be one member doing his best to rile other members and cause arguments.
:-(
A former member
CPFC, I know it's only 1 troublemaker stirring the pot. But as a disabled person myself, I take this seriously. So that's why, ASAP, I'm going PM our glorious leader (whatever good that does-still waiting for a response from Sunday!) and have, to use diplomatic language "a frank exchange of views"!
WO
Woody_streatham
I watched the ITV coverage last night so can't comment on the BBC. But I did find it very macabre. We saw the bath were the girls died, the house from top to bottom, artists impressions, computer graphics of how it all happened, and live from the house in Soham. They should have focused more on Huntley and less on the actual details of the girls deaths. Or am I just being to sensitive?
NG
noggin Founding member
Larry Scutta posted:
noggin posted:

It is only a legal requirement for ITC licensed DTT services (i.e. not the BBC DTT TV services) - however the BBC have agreed to match the ITC targets - though there is no legal obligation on the BBC to do so AIUI. (This may change in the New Year under OFCOM - I'm not sure)


Although aren't the BBC services on MUXB ITC Licensed? It was the case years ago when BBC Knowledges was on MUXA that it had to adhere to ITC regs. Do all the DTT channels do their bit? Don't remember seeing many of them have signing, compared with the ONdigital days when they all did at some point

TBH I think the BBC approach is the best way - all its signed programmes are either repeats of non-signed programmes or in the case of News 24 another non-signed bulletin is availiable on BBC1.


I think that Mux B is deemed a BBC mux now - so BBC Four and BBCi services don't need to be ITC compliant- though you are right that when the BBC rented a slot for BBC Knowledge on SDN's Mux A they did.

I think that the reason the Beeb don't use BBCi 701 or 702 on DTT for signing because there are times when 701 and 702 would be used for services like Wimbledon, Olympics...
CA
cat
CHRISTY THE ALMIGHTY posted:
I REALLY think the moderators had better think very carefully about this thread, because what started as a discussion about TV coverage of the Soham murder trial verdicts has degenerated into a "debate" which seems to be edging towards verbal abuse of the disabled. Gentlemen, it's over to you!


I don't think anybody has any intention of verbally abusing the disabled, and I don't think we have even come close to that.

Quite how you are able to equate a discussion over whether in-vision signing should be so prevalent on BBC News 24 to some sort of verbal assault on disabled people really is a wonder.
NE
Neil__
noggin posted:
I think that Mux B is deemed a BBC mux now - so BBC Four and BBCi services don't need to be ITC compliant- though you are right that when the BBC rented a slot for BBC Knowledge on SDN's Mux A they did.
I think that the reason the Beeb don't use BBCi 701 or 702 on DTT for signing because there are times when 701 and 702 would be used for services like Wimbledon, Olympics...

I must admit to having lost track slightly, but is there not some spare capacity on mux B, even when 701/2 are running? Is there not enough space to run a signing service?
Mind you, I guess the argument would then be about which BBC channels/programmes get signed.
LU
Luke
Courtesy of Media Guardian

Quote:
TV news channel ratings

SUNDAY - Capture of Saddam

News 24: 6.3m(multichannel + simulcasts)
Sky: 4.3m
News 24: 3.2m (multichannel only)
ITV News Channel: 1.1m

WEDNESDAY - Soham

News 24: 3.2m (multichannel + simulcasts)
Sky: 1.9m
News 24: 1.5m (multichannel only)
ITV News Channel: 0.6m
WO
Woody_streatham
Sorry to be pedantic, but the ITV news channel peaked at 66,000 which is 0.07m not 0.6m
SR
Sir Richard Rotcod
The multichannel & simulcasts label next to Sky's Saddam figures should be on the line above.

Good old Grauniad...
:-(
A former member
People really don't know where to go for breaking news/big news stories.

Newer posts