BBC standards ARE dropping and this is proved by the poor range of sports programmes shown on the channel.
Oh dear. What crap.
How on earth can you realistically measure the BBC's broader performance against the sport that it shows? For the most part, the reason the BBC 'lost' a good deal of its sports rights is because it doesn't want to pay vastly inflated sums for it. It increases its bid to a reasonable amount, and then some, but there has to be a cut-off point. The BBC could quite easily spend vast amounts of money on bringing the most prestigious sporting events 'home' to BBC ONE, but then everyone would scream blue murder because the BBC was wasting such large sums on sport. This is the same reason that the BBC 'lost' The Simpsons when prices from 2004 exploded from the current £100,000 per episode to £700,000 per episode. Just as with many sports rights, everyone cried "the BBC lost The Simpsons" when in reality, they weren't prepared to squander truly outrageous amounts of public cash for the sake of it. And why would they, when there are plenty of other projects to squander public cash on? (But that's another thread entirely...)
So the Beeb are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, but please don't give us this crap about the BBC failing just because it doesn't have the sporting crown jewels any more.
And please, please resist from throwing the old "so you think the BBC can do no wrong" lines at me - that's not what I said, and it's certainly not what I think. What I
am
saying is that your assertion that BBC standards are dropping measured solely against diversity of sports coverage is one of the most badly thought-out statements I've ever heard.
BBC standards ARE dropping and this is proved by the poor range of sports programmes shown on the channel.
Oh dear. What crap.
How on earth can you realistically measure the BBC's broader performance against the sport that it shows? For the most part, the reason the BBC 'lost' a good deal of its sports rights is because it doesn't want to pay vastly inflated sums for it. It increases its bid to a reasonable amount, and then some, but there has to be a cut-off point. The BBC could quite easily spend vast amounts of money on bringing the most prestigious sporting events 'home' to BBC ONE, but then everyone would scream blue murder because the BBC was wasting such large sums on sport. This is the same reason that the BBC 'lost' The Simpsons when prices from 2004 exploded from the current £100,000 per episode to £700,000 per episode. Just as with many sports rights, everyone cried "the BBC lost The Simpsons" when in reality, they weren't prepared to squander truly outrageous amounts of public cash for the sake of it. And why would they, when there are plenty of other projects to squander public cash on? (But that's another thread entirely...)
So the Beeb are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, but please don't give us this crap about the BBC failing just because it doesn't have the sporting crown jewels any more.
And please, please resist from throwing the old "so you think the BBC can do no wrong" lines at me - that's not what I said, and it's certainly not what I think. What I
am
saying is that your assertion that BBC standards are dropping measured solely against diversity of sports coverage is one of the most badly thought-out statements I've ever heard.
[/bait taken]
I still haven't hear done valid reason why the BBC showed 'that' news bulletin yet!
Comparing the BBC where it was ten years ago with the current state of it imho the quality of the output has dropped. That is my opinion and im allowed to state it! If the BBC Brigade want to fight that statement thats upto you/them.
Since when have the BBC played 'dirty tricks' like this before? I can't ever remember any other channel doing this before - unless there was already a news bulletin already scheduled.
So in my eyes the BBC are stooping low to try and bolster its own transmission. Of course every station is supposed to do this but I would've expected five to try this stunt not the national broadcaster BBC!
This is not a new "trick" by the BBC. I still remember many years ago when ITV won the "delayed rights" to Frank Bruno v Joe Bugner (much to BBC's annoyance). Just 5 minutes before the fight was to be shown on ITV they announced the result in the middle of their snooker coverage!
Typical spoiler, then and now.
During a scheduled news bulletin there would be no issue, but putting on a "newsflash" for this is absurd. Clearly not justified when you compare with other pieces of news that do or do not attract a newsflash.
Could we not also argue that ITV picking up the Turkey v England rights, considering the BBC showed the rest of the campaign, was also somewhat of a spoiling tactic, though??
...and yet you slag off the
BBC
for not growing up.
ohwhatanight posted:
I still haven't hear done valid reason why the BBC showed 'that' news bulletin yet!
Oh dear god, who cares? Even if they did do it just to upstage ITV, so what? Why is this such a big deal?
ohwhatanight posted:
Comparing the BBC where it was ten years ago with the current state of it imho the quality of the output has dropped. That is my opinion and im allowed to state it! If the BBC Brigade want to fight that statement thats upto you/them.
Well you've done exactly what I expected you to do, but misrepresenting what I said. If you'd care to actually read what I said above, instead of trying to trip me up with your oh-so-clever wording, I did specifically say that I was only commenting on your assertion that BBC standards were lower measured solely against the diversity of its sports coverage.
You didn't make a general statement about believing that standards had slipped at the BBC; you were very specific:
"BBC standards ARE dropping and this is proved by the poor range of sports programmes shown on the channel"
I correctly stated that the range of sports programmes on the channel has nothing to do with BBC standards whatsoever, and certainly doesn't prove that they are dropping. You go right ahead and enjoy your opinion that BBC standards have fallen over the last ten years; but that's not the point that I raised before, it's simply something that you tacked on afterwards to try to obscure your rather clumsy point.
While we're on the subject of growing up, perhaps you might like to mature a little yourself. I've already quite clearly stated that I don't think the BBC can do no wrong, and I don't blindly defend it whatever the circumstances, as I'm sure many people on here would know. To that effect, do you think that you could possibly get past the juvenile 'BBC Brigade' tag and progress on to some form of intelligent discussion, instead of simply evading the points being raised by heckling me and any others who disagree with you? Quite apart from anything it belittles your 'arguments' because rather than substantiate them, you simply misrepresent the opposing viewpoints and call people names. If you actually want genuine discussion about the validity of the BBC using such 'underhand' tactics, then by all means, let's get a debate going, but if you're just going to keep shouting your opinions louder and louder and ignore those of others, then it really is time for you to go back to the playground.
Well the BBC didn't show the whole campaign - the home games and some of the away games. Sky bought the original rights, not the BBC. When these rights came up, the BBC didn't even bid. Not much spoiling going on there, just an open bid for thr rights, which the BBC could have got if they'd wanted them, given how flush with cash they are at the moment.
Could we not also argue that ITV picking up the Turkey v England rights, considering the BBC showed the rest of the campaign, was also somewhat of a spoiling tactic, though??
A spoiler for who? the general public watching or the BBC bigwigs?
BBC LDN posted:
ohwhatanight posted:
[/bait taken]
...and yet you slag off the
BBC
for not growing up.
I think people need to either get a) a sense of humour or b) get a life!
BBC LDN posted:
ohwhatanight posted:
I still haven't hear done valid reason why the BBC showed 'that' news bulletin yet!
Oh dear god, who cares? Even if they did do it just to upstage ITV, so what? Why is this such a big deal?
Im sure if ITV intentionally had a spoiler 'news flash' every weekend that England had played in the past - im sure the BBCB would be on here causing uproar - but whenever the boot is on the other foot the same argument never stands because its the 'beloved' BBC doing it! TSK!!
BBC LDN posted:
ohwhatanight posted:
Comparing the BBC where it was ten years ago with the current state of it imho the quality of the output has dropped. That is my opinion and im allowed to state it! If the BBC Brigade want to fight that statement thats upto you/them.
Well you've done exactly what I expected you to do, but misrepresenting what I said. If you'd care to actually read what I said above, instead of trying to trip me up with your oh-so-clever wording, I did specifically say that I was only commenting on your assertion that BBC standards were lower measured solely against the diversity of its sports coverage.
You didn't make a general statement about believing that standards had slipped at the BBC; you were very specific:
"BBC standards ARE dropping and this is proved by the poor range of sports programmes shown on the channel"
I correctly stated that the range of sports programmes on the channel has nothing to do with BBC standards whatsoever, and certainly doesn't prove that they are dropping. You go right ahead and enjoy your opinion that BBC standards have fallen over the last ten years; but that's not the point that I raised before, it's simply something that you tacked on afterwards to try to obscure your rather clumsy point.
I dont think you understand the premise of a conversation and the way ideas and statements grow. If I knew you were going to pick my post to pieces I would've made a ten page statement stating everything that is wrong with the BBC just so you couldn't go nit-picking my post!
The current point in question was about the 'news flash' on the BBC which came about due to the demise of sport on the BBC.
The BBC range of programmes can generally be split into a few different areas - news, SPORT, drama, entertainment and education. And my comment about sports coverage, and the BBC's standards in general declining, are my view and I still see that as a valid point. Sports coverage on the BBC has declined in the last ten years and imho all programmes are getting worse.
Following on from this I still believe that the BBC went out of their way to intentionally spoil the ITV coverage and just proves how low the BBC as a corporation is sinking. I think the way Sky has acquired most sport from the BBC (and ITV) has been bad for the general public as a whole.
BBC LDN posted:
While we're on the subject of growing up, perhaps you might like to mature a little yourself. I've already quite clearly stated that I don't think the BBC can do no wrong, and I don't blindly defend it whatever the circumstances, as I'm sure many people on here would know. To that effect, do you think that you could possibly get past the juvenile 'BBC Brigade' tag and progress on to some form of intelligent discussion, instead of simply evading the points being raised by heckling me and any others who disagree with you? Quite apart from anything it belittles your 'arguments' because rather than substantiate them, you simply misrepresent the opposing viewpoints and call people names. If you actually want genuine discussion about the validity of the BBC using such 'underhand' tactics, then by all means, let's get a debate going, but if you're just going to keep shouting your opinions louder and louder and ignore those of others, then it really is time for you to go back to the playground.
See - I havent attacked you at all but you have taken my comments about the BBC personally and have told me to grow up!
Well the BBC didn't show the whole campaign - the home games and some of the away games. Sky bought the original rights, not the BBC. When these rights came up, the BBC didn't even bid. Not much spoiling going on there, just an open bid for thr rights, which the BBC could have got if they'd wanted them, given how flush with cash they are at the moment.
No offence, mate, but I'm in a better position to know than you - they are not flush with cash.
Aside from the fact that you've confirmed everything I just said, I feel it important to reiterate my original point, because you've completely ignored it.
You said:
BBC standards ARE dropping and this is proved by the poor range of sports programmes shown on the channel"
I pointed out that the range of sports programming on the channel cannot be cited as the sole indicator for BBC standards dropping.
Since I said that, you have clarified what you meant - which incidentally seems to be something quite different from what you said in the above quote in red. You have since said:
The current point in question was about the 'news flash' on the BBC which came about due to the demise of sport on the BBC.
The BBC range of programmes can generally be split into a few different areas - news, SPORT, drama, entertainment and education. And my comment about sports coverage, and the BBC's standards in general declining, are my view and I still see that as a valid point. Sports coverage on the BBC has declined in the last ten years and imho all programmes are getting worse.
Notice that that is not the same as:
BBC standards ARE dropping and this is proved by the poor range of sports programmes shown on the channel"
I also find it fascinating that you have assertained that the entire
raison d'être
of the offending news flash was "due to the demise of sport on the BBC". Can you take us all through the logic processes that brought you to this conclusion?
Furthermore, it's hardly a compliment when you group me with the highly stigmatised 'BBC Brigade' - these are people who have no opinion other than "The BBC Is The Best In All Things". As I've now pointed out several times over, I don't share this opinion; hence it is unfair to throw me together with them.
Additionally, on your questioning of my requests that you grow up:
I think people need to either get a) a sense of humour or b) get a life!
is hardly the most mature of statements, especially from he who preaches about the premise of conversation and the multidirectional flow of ideas and statements.
Finally, I say again that the point on which I picked you up, about measuring the BBC's standards against its diversity of sports coverage, was crap.
Your later explanations of what you originally meant do not correspond to that original statement. Please feel free to further address this specific matter in a private message to me, which I cannot guarantee that I will read, but it saves everyone else the hassle of watching me repeatedly prove you wrong.
