View Full Version : bbc cuts and the tv licence
dvtimes
10-19-07, 12:20 PM
With cuts in the bbc and the anouncement of more repeats do you still think we shoulsd be paying for the licence?
Recently the bbc has bought out a traverling book firm (i think naked planet or somthing), I wonder if that means i will be getting free books or will I have to pay for them. I do not recall paying the licence fee to alow a firm (bbc) to make investments, I thought it was to make tv/radio shows.
Also I would think if they were to terminate some contracts (such as Jonathon Ross who the bbc is paying millions to), then most of the jobs could be saved.
Licence What?
I really don't and can't see them keeping the licence fee for much longer. Its just so outdated, when we all go digital everyone will have access to all the freview channels and the BBC will probably lose a big slice of their audience anyway.
The majority of people, well the two I spoke to, don't agree with the fee but are not prepared to risk a fine by refusing to pay it. If it were optional how many people would pay it?
If you are outside of the UK you don't pay a licence fee.
dvtimes
10-19-07, 12:43 PM
I also think once we move to all; digital Sky will have problems.
The reason people go for Sky is for extra channels, but if people get 30 or so channels free, will people opt for Sky?
I also think once we move to all; digital Sky will have problems.
The reason people go for Sky is for extra channels, but if people get 30 or so channels free, will people opt for Sky?
Of course they will, I can't think why anyone would want to but a lot of people like to watch sport. I believe the sky sports package is their most expensive.
It seems people would rather have 400 channels of crap and repeats than just 40 or so channels full of crap and repeats.
[QUOTE=Geezer]Licence What?
The majority of people, well the two I spoke to, don't agree QUOTE]
You really should get more.:P
dvtimes
10-19-07, 12:51 PM
[quote=Geezer]Licence What?
The majority of people, well the two I spoke to, don't agree QUOTE]
You really should get more.:P
That was probably me and smithmedia, those are the only two friends geezer has.
I also think once we move to all; digital Sky will have problems.
The reason people go for Sky is for extra channels, but if people get 30 or so channels free, will people opt for Sky?
I take it you've never experienced sky + then ?
Plus sky also have all the sports and movie channels !
We're already paying our license fee for just a load of constantly repeated US shows. We don't even get any original own made stuff to repeat. So other than the odd live sporting thing, and the news, there's not much to show for our license fee.
Oh and the odd ripped off show that they call something different and change in little ways to get out of paying the license fee to the original creator (Starmania = Popstars, & Dancing Stars = Strictly Come Dancing)
dvtimes
10-19-07, 01:06 PM
I take it you've never experienced sky + then ?
Plus sky also have all the sports and movie channels !
my aunt has sky.
i do not like sport, and i find after a few years film are on tv anyway.
the only thing that i woulde watch is the comedy/cartoon channels.
but in truth nothing to make me want to bother with sky, even if it was free.
to be honest i use the net and radio more than tv these days.
my aunt has sky.
i do not like sport, and i find after a few years film are on tv anyway.
the only thing that i woulde watch is the comedy/cartoon channels.
but in truth nothing to make me want to bother with sky, even if it was free.
to be honest i use the net and radio more than tv these days.
Cbeebies is free.
dvtimes
10-19-07, 01:15 PM
Cbeebies is free.
yes
i watched that a few days qago, when the presenter was asking some 5 year olds basic maths.
I got the answers wrong.
Made me feel stupid.
Desided the shows were too advanced for me.
Plus the new them tune for postman pat sucks. I used to enjoy a sign along to the start of the show. its just not the same now.
I also think once we move to all; digital Sky will have problems.
The reason people go for Sky is for extra channels, but if people get 30 or so channels free, will people opt for Sky?
85% of households already have digital TV and Sky's subscriber base is still growing.
xcite-tv
10-19-07, 06:04 PM
regarding BBC cuts:
perhaps paying Johnathon Ross more than ANY Premiership footballer earns might be a mistake.. is he worth it ??
I used to enjoy a sign along to the start of the show. its just not the same now.
Is that a typo? Sign along or sing along? either way, it paints quite a picture of you and your dog on the sofa.
Do you do the wookie noises deaf people make when speaking?
I so wish I hadn't even thunk that, let alone wrote it.
wingless
10-19-07, 09:59 PM
sky are using extras to increase there customer base like the broadband and sky talk, they have now launched a service where u dont pay your line rental to bt, its all done through them
sky also offer a freeview package called freesat but its got so few people using it
Virgin Media admitted in Q2 results that it had lost around 40,000 TV customers as a direct result of its squabble with Sky, which withdrew key channels from the cable operator.
Overall, Virgin's net TV subscriber base grew very slightly by 2,500 over the period. Over the sme period, Sky TV gained 77,000 new pay-TV subscribers.
Strange but true.
fosburger
10-19-07, 10:55 PM
I live in the U.S. I would gladly pay a license fee for some decent stuff. 95% of the TV here is garbage plus a crazy amount of adds. Also the beeb is probably the most respected TV Co in the world. They must make a fortune sindicating all their shows worldwide no?
I live in the U.S.
Nuff said
WordsforHire
10-20-07, 12:34 AM
I live in the U.S. I would gladly pay a license fee for some decent stuff. 95% of the TV here is garbage plus a crazy amount of adds. Also the beeb is probably the most respected TV Co in the world. They must make a fortune sindicating all their shows worldwide no?
Is it hell. And all they do is have stupid spin of shows with no real, decent stuff being made in ages. The stuff they are cutting were the only things they were good at, instead theywill focus on people like jonathon ross who can't even say his own fucking name properly.
NumptyNuts
10-20-07, 12:42 AM
then most of the jobs could be saved.
They are closing the open centres and ditching the mobile internet buses, I agree with those things being fucked off, have to agree with that.
At our lass's work they have an open center where you can go use a computer and the web free of charge - this has to be staffed and we pay for it - worked out the open centre costs £6 per head where as the radio was
.0006 per head.
As for JR - they need big names to pull in the viewers that guy deserves all he gets after all hes classed as a spastic so gives ema tick in the right box ;)
Is it hell. And all they do is have stupid spin of shows with no real, decent stuff being made in ages. The stuff they are cutting were the only things they were good at, instead theywill focus on people like jonathon ross who can't even say his own fucking name properly.
You need to leave the country more, the beeb (and the UK in general) still makes the highest quality tv.
WordsforHire
10-20-07, 02:06 AM
You need to leave the country more, the beeb (and the UK in general) still makes the highest quality tv.
Yes I probably do, will show this post to the other half and see if it will inspire him to take me abroad somewhere, for research purposes of course.
dvtimes
10-20-07, 09:52 AM
You need to leave the country more, the beeb (and the UK in general) still makes the highest quality tv.
Apart from newsnight, can you name 5 desent tv shows the bbc has put out (that are not repeets) in the last 6 months.
dvtimes
10-20-07, 09:59 AM
In fact you will find that these days most BBC TV shows are not BBC but made by different firms.
Where the BBC is best is such as Radio 4.
Apart from newsnight, can you name 5 desent tv shows the bbc has put out (that are not repeets) in the last 6 months.
The Tower, Dragons' Den, The Apprentice, Question Time, Spooks, QI, HIGNYF, Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain, Coast, Mountain, Five Days...
dvtimes
10-20-07, 10:50 AM
The Tower, Dragons' Den, The Apprentice, Question Time, Spooks, QI, HIGNYF, Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain, Coast, Mountain, Five Days...
Dragons' Den, The Apprentice: these are usa shows. ok, may be made for uk, but not realy a bbc show.
QI: good, but its just an old bbc format that has been around years and just re-vamped. It started on the radio with such as the news quiz, and lots of others. Its basicly a classic bbc format. One presenter and 3 people on each side (often witty people). Think of have i got a clue.
Spooks: Made to sell to the usa.
And the others can all be put on ITV, in fact I do not think any of these shows are made by the bbc. QI is not a bbc production.
And the others can all be put on ITV, in fact I do not think any of these shows are made by the bbc. QI is not a bbc production.
No they can't - ITV is far too common for me to watch........
The BBC is commissioning editor for most of the programs... most are made by independants these days, or are co productions with other tv companies.... so news and sport apart you'd be hard pushed to find any pure BBC productions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_television_drama they are responsible for lots of progs that I had forgot about... With an important race looming tomorrow and if you like F1 then give me back BBC coverage over ITV any day
British TV is better than anywhere else in the world.
Is that to do with the Licence fee, yes. If we scrapped it would quality over all fall. I think it would.
Do I believe that justify's everyone being made to pay it, even if they don't agree with me? No
But I do think at £100 a year or whatever it is, its worth keeping.
By the way, Sky Plus and HD fucking rocks :gaylords:
Dragons' Den, The Apprentice: these are usa shows. ok, may be made for uk, but not realy a bbc show.
QI: good, but its just an old bbc format that has been around years and just re-vamped. It started on the radio with such as the news quiz, and lots of others. Its basicly a classic bbc format. One presenter and 3 people on each side (often witty people). Think of have i got a clue.
Spooks: Made to sell to the usa.
And the others can all be put on ITV, in fact I do not think any of these shows are made by the bbc. QI is not a bbc production.
You don't half take a load of fuckin bollocks sometimes.
The Apprentice is an American format, but aren't all these types of shows.
Dragons Den originated in Japan.
QI has two people either side of the presenter and there are no teams.
It is not an old format.Perhaps it is far beyond your cerebral capabilities.
Spooks: Made for America,ha!
Most major broadcasters, including the BBC, commission external production companies for programming, wrong when we pay a license fee but what can you do.
Most major broadcasters, including the BBC, commission external production companies for programming, wrong when we pay a license fee but what can you do.
Don't pay the fee ;)
Don't pay the fee ;)
Tried that and the fuckers just kept coming around to the house!
I'm sure the BBC could go pay as you go. So every time you watch a BBC programme you would rack up your time and fee. Each month they send you a bill with a breakdown of what you watched for how long and how much you owe them.
Even if they could I doubt they would cos they would lose millions and millions and millions of pounds.
What if at the end of the year I am not happy with the service I have received, ie crap programmes and repeats, oh and repeats of crap programmes. Could I then write and tell them I'm not happy and get part of my fee back...no
The amount of time my TV is on the BBC isn't even worth talking about. We, well my missus watches Eastenders and I have got into Top Gear. I can't think of any other programmes on at the moment that I/we watch.
In fact you will find that these days most BBC TV shows are not BBC but made by different firms.
Where the BBC is best is such as Radio 4.
There's loads but what's the point in your sad little world you'll find an excuse for any of them to not count as you've already proved. I'll waste not one more minute on your small-minded, small-world view when it's more than obvious you never crossed a border.
dvtimes
10-20-07, 01:51 PM
There's loads but what's the point in your sad little world you'll find an excuse for any of them to not count as you've already proved. I'll waste not one more minute on your small-minded, small-world view when it's more than obvious you never crossed a border.
My point is that if they are not made by the bbc surly they can be put on itv.
Take QI, its not (unless i am wrong) made by the bbc, so what stops it being put on itv, ch4, ch5????
The reality is, is that the bbc was suposed to keep standereds up.
Radio 1 is now done comercialy by many stations and often better.
We even have a clasical station producing far better classical than the bbc.
While Iwould say bbc radio 4 is still needed as at yet comercial stations have not produced such a station, but rather have 1 dj playing music.
These days ITV, ch4, even ch5 are producing basicly the same progs as bbc, often even better, and have done so for many years.
So in the age of multi channels and less people watching the bbc, is it still right to have one station have a monolpoly payment system?
wingless
10-20-07, 02:21 PM
as far as i was aware the most popular raido station in the uk is bb radio 2 so they must be doing something right
I don't understand your point here DVT. You either don't like the BBC and want the BBC made a commercial organisation or you like the BBC, taken all the fuckin news posts you have made and the fact that you listen to BBC Radio 4, what the fuck for I don't know.
Does it matter who makes programmes for the BBC,ITV or whoever, they all license the programmes from the independant production companies anyway.
I agree that the BBC should be a pay as you go service.
Afterall if you don't like Sky you get rid of it.
as far as i was aware the most popular raido station in the uk is bb radio 2 so they must be doing something right
They did, they had a 30 year head start.
Most major broadcasters, including the BBC, commission external production companies for programming, wrong when we pay a license fee but what can you do.
when you buy a loaf of bread, do you expect the baker to chop the wood for the oven, grow the corn, make flour from it, dig a fountian to get the water and gain salt through his own hands' work, or would you expect him to buy the ingredients as well as water and electricity supply and do what he does best, providing fine bread?
it's a common thing in nearly every business field to have specialists provide elementary parts of your final product/service.
and this is also what media houses like the BBC do. they outsource bits that can be done better and/or cheaper by someone else, nothing wrong with that. would you say they should take on a new project, see it crash (and there is a lot that enver makes it further than a pilot screening) and they have to fire part of the staff due to lack of work, or do you think it's better to buy the product from an external supplier?
as far as fees are concerned, i for one prefer to have at least one media house that's left in a sort of national control, obviously they too will never be completely unbiased, but a market totally in the hands of the likes of Murdoch isn't something i'd enjoy.
when you buy a loaf of bread, do you expect the baker to chop the wood for the oven, grow the corn, make flour from it, dig a fountian to get the water and gain salt through his own hands' work, or would you expect him to buy the ingredients as well as water and electricity supply and do what he does best, providing fine bread?
it's a common thing in nearly every business field to have specialists provide elementary parts of your final product/service.
and this is also what media houses like the BBC do. they outsource bits that can be done better and/or cheaper by someone else, nothing wrong with that. would you say they should take on a new project, see it crash (and there is a lot that enver makes it further than a pilot screening) and they have to fire part of the staff due to lack of work, or do you think it's better to buy the product from an external supplier?
as far as fees are concerned, i for one prefer to have at least one media house that's left in a sort of national control, obviously they too will never be completely unbiased, but a market totally in the hands of the likes of Murdoch isn't something i'd enjoy.
Your bakery analogy served what purpose?
and thank you for your basic lesson in business.
As the BBC commissions programmes/services externally, it stands to reason that when the BBC do actually produce programming content and earn revenue from licensing that content out they have now become a commercial broadcaster. Therfore,as a commercial broadcaster they should not be allowed to charge a license fee.
Your bakery analogy served what purpose?
it's a common technique when explaining something to those who have issues understanding. you find simple examples to break it down for them.
and thank you for your basic lesson in business.
and since you got that, it obviously worked. :)
samrogers
10-20-07, 03:56 PM
I would be more than happy to continue to pay the license fee if it meant we had an unbiased national broardcaster, a company that doesnt need to worry about advert revenue and ratings and just got on with making great quality programing. You complain about american imports and repeats but have you seen ITV recently? ITVs programming is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator and come 12 oclock its turned over to robbing quiz tv programs.
As the BBC commissions programmes/services externally, it stands to reason that when the BBC do actually produce programming content and earn revenue from licensing that content out they have now become a commercial broadcaster. Therfore,as a commercial broadcaster they should not be allowed to charge a license fee.
The problem here is in the use of the word 'commercial'. Sure, the BBC has commerical operations, but the proceeds of those are rolled back into the production of TV and radio programmes and web content. They allow the BBC to spend beyond the means afforded it by the licence fee and probably even keep the licence fee down. If anything, it would be harder to justify the licence fee if the BBC *didn't* have commerical operations because people would be moaning that they weren't exploiting their content to bring in revenue.
The BBC is a non-profit organization and that's where the distinction needs to be made, not whether or not it's commercial.
Dragons' Den, The Apprentice: these are usa shows. ok, may be made for uk, but not realy a bbc show.
QI: good, but its just an old bbc format that has been around years and just re-vamped. It started on the radio with such as the news quiz, and lots of others. Its basicly a classic bbc format. One presenter and 3 people on each side (often witty people). Think of have i got a clue.
Spooks: Made to sell to the usa.
And the others can all be put on ITV, in fact I do not think any of these shows are made by the bbc. QI is not a bbc production.
Just answering the question you asked.
Saying Spooks is made to sell to the US is ridiculous. I'm sure most BBC drama is made with one eye on US rights these days, but it's primary purpose is to fill screen time here in the UK.
Oh, and Dragons' Den isn't a US show, it started out as a Japanese one. There's never been a US version.
wingless
10-20-07, 04:09 PM
a company that doesnt need to worry about advert revenue and ratings and just got on with making great quality programing.
arnt rating and producing quality programs kinda the same thing, if somethings good then lots of people will watch it and there for it will have higher ratings
if somethings good then lots of people will watch it
you aren't suggesting that a majority vote on something abtract like beauty or amusement relates to quality?
appealing to a large group means to be rather average in fact. always finding a middle ground to not upset part of the target audience.
Unfortunately, there is now a US version of Dragons Den.
US meaning United States!
wingless
10-20-07, 05:17 PM
you aren't suggesting that a majority vote on something abtract like beauty or amusement relates to quality?
appealing to a large group means to be rather average in fact. always finding a middle ground to not upset part of the target audience.
not at all, every one has different tastes so what appells to the majority wont appell to everyone. some may say its wonderful and some will hate it, but producing tv shows they have to pick ones that the majority enjoy.
All I want from the BBC is the right to switch off its services and not pay for them and still watch other telly legally. If they really are as great as everyone says, I'm sure I'll realise it and sign up again, when I realise the terrible mistake I've made, but right now I think I could do with out it.
And at the very minimum the TV license should be just that. TV only. Newspapers, of which the UK has a wide selection to suit every taste and bias, are clearly much better placed to run news websites - not to mention much better at doing it than the Beeb, so how come the Beeb get run their newsite with TV watchers money? Between the Guardian online and the Telegraph online, I'm pretty happy both sides of any argument been presented to their full. The Beebs website is so dumbed down fact free these days the best you can hope for is to use it as a tip off to go look elsewhere for the full facts. And in any event, Telegraph, Gaurdian or beeb, 90% is wire service anyway, just different sub-editing.
It's not like Beeb can currently pump out quality telly at will right now, so a bit more focus on what we have paid for might be an idea.
If the beeb is so fucking great how come it can't slam dunk Friday and Saturday over the other UK terrestrial channels?
Prime time Saturday night and we have on BBC - Strictly Come Dancing, the National Lottery, Casuality and the Vicar of Dibley. At 5 to midnight it perks up with Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead, but I'm pretty sure thats not an original BBC production.
ITV has the rugby, X-factor, Parkinson and the Grand Prix. Which I would say put ITV ahead - Rugby and the GP are current major sporting events, though not to my taste. X-factor trumps Strictly Come Dancing and Parky vs Ross is no contest.
And as for all the american board whores telling us how shit their telly is to make feel better and get their post counts up. Bollocks. Lost, 24, The Sopranos, Ugly Betty, Entourage, Deadwood, Six Feet Under, Sex in the City, Heros, Fraiser, Freinds. And thats just the stuff I like off the top of my head, but adding to that list would be dead easy, as you read it you've probably already thought of a couple of blinding omissions for shows that should be there. - Oh yes, all shit compared the the Vicar of Dibley and Robin Hood...
I don't mind that the Beeb is crap, I just resent having to pay for it, especially when all they seem to want to do is to go spend it on other more sexy things, like the internet, where they have no remit, and aren't needed anyway.
Straight choice: Parky or Wossy? Hmmm, intelligent conversation or purile bottom and willy jokes... Ross just ain't that good and certainly not 6 million per year good.
samrogers
10-20-07, 05:29 PM
But if you run your TV programming with focus groups you will never have any innovation or any deviation. Did you know the first series of only fools and horses wasnt very good, in fact a second series almost didnt get made. These days it probably wouldnt get made at all if you pitched a sitcom to a focus group about 2 market traders with visions of grandeur who live with thier grandad in a council flat do you think it would get made?
wingless
10-20-07, 05:47 PM
but then there are some truely amazing programs made that proboly shouldent, i mean how would u pitch something like the mighty boosh?
i do aggree that you should be able to opt out of having bbc and paying for it tho, as previously said, if you dont want sjy u can get rid of it ans stop paying (as long as your not in contact :p )
dvtimes
10-20-07, 10:55 PM
Stopping the licence fee would not end the bbc for it can simply become subscription or even advertised based. This would not mean a worse servise, possibly even better as the beeb would have to become more efficient.
The whole point of the licence was to ensure that a channel was around to provide quality. These days itv, ch4 and 5 are providing good qualiity shows, often better than the been.
In fact now the bbc has started producing tv shows that are low grade that it was not meant to. Such as strictly come dancing is now just a tripe show on the same lines as xfactor.
ITV has produced many quality shows in the last few years, rising damp, only when i laugh, minder, and so on. So they are capable of quality.
In fact one thing you could say is now the bbc has gone into a competition war with itv, the result has been junk on itv such as xfactor. these are cheap shows.
The problem with the bbc is that people live in the past. the beeb was once great, but it no longer is. its a huge money eating monstor that produces not much for what it gets.
It also does not have a role anymore and is trying to be all things to all people.
The bbc is out of date now in a world of multi channels. in fact its a business making huge profits from selling shows to the usa and other countries, not to mention all its shows they sell on dvd.
You should change your name to Pastiche Postee.
dvtimes
10-20-07, 11:02 PM
By the way, as Simon has said the usa has and still produce quality tv shows.
No one can say the phil silvers show (bilko) is not one of the best shows ever made, in fact you can list hundreds of great usa shows (jukes of hazards, chips, a team, benson, .......).
I also find it offensive that jonothan ross gets paid as much as he does. There should be a cap on what presenters are paid. If they wish to work for itv for more, thats fine. Personaly I would rather watch a film on friday night and hate his show as all it is, is pop stars or film stars promoting there latest song or film.
Why do find it find offensive that JR gets paid so much?
dvtimes
10-20-07, 11:08 PM
as far as i was aware the most popular raido station in the uk is bb radio 2 so they must be doing something right
yes, but that does not make it right.
by that i mean radio 2 is simply a few dj's. no reason that cannot be comercial. it is not for the licence fee to pay for.
radio 2 is also a national station, and as such is bound to have a huge nomber of listeners as there are not many commercial national fm stations. thus the bbc has a monoloply on listners.
But anyway, while radio 2 mabe popular its not a station that needs or should be funded by the licence fee.
dvtimes
10-20-07, 11:13 PM
Why do find it find offensive that JR gets paid so much?
its offensive as its a non commercial station.
if he was on itv, or ch4 i could not care less what he is paid.
however i am paying his wage. and i have no choice in that matter.
there is no reason to pay him so much.
the crazy thing is, is that people are being sent to prison or fined because they cannot afford to pay for the licence, yet you have somone getting paid a ton of cash just to have fun. it aint bad for some.
dvtimes
10-20-07, 11:15 PM
but then there are some truely amazing programs made that proboly shouldent, i mean how would u pitch something like the mighty boosh?
ch4 create some fantastic shows.
dvtimes
10-20-07, 11:18 PM
At the end of the day we live in a capalist system, so do you not find it bizare to have a comunist state tv????
sure it may be independent but its still funded by the state.
the uk is probably now one of the most comunist countries going. i mean even china does not have state hospitals.
its offensive as its a non commercial station.
if he was on itv, or ch4 i could not care less what he is paid.
however i am paying his wage. and i have no choice in that matter.
there is no reason to pay him so much.
the crazy thing is, is that people are being sent to prison or fined because they cannot afford to pay for the licence, yet you have somone getting paid a ton of cash just to have fun. it aint bad for some.
why is it offensive if he brings in viewers/listeners?
samrogers
10-20-07, 11:29 PM
Personally im glad it exists im happy it still stands as a bastion of quality broadcasting throughout the world and im happy if im watching something on one of the channels i dont have to sit through 5-6 minutes of adverts, I do however feel that it could do with slimming down in some places and quite frankly i feel that the current course of action with funding is appropriate.
wingless
10-21-07, 01:29 AM
At the end of the day we live in a capalist system, so do you not find it bizare to have a comunist state tv????
sure it may be independent but its still funded by the state.
the uk is probably now one of the most comunist countries going. i mean even china does not have state hospitals.
how on earth have you gone from ranting about the bbc to the saying chinas better because if a person there gets hurt he might not get treatment because he doesent have health insurnace??? thats a pritty big jump
and with jr you have to remember that although he is payed alot he does do more than just the friday night show, to my knolage he does a radio show and film 2007 (there could be more, i havent relaly looked into it)
ITV has produced many quality shows in the last few years, rising damp, only when i laugh, minder, and so on. So they are capable of quality.
I think 'last few years' is stretching it a bit when it comes to those shows :P
The bbc is out of date now in a world of multi channels. in fact its a business making huge profits from selling shows to the usa and other countries, not to mention all its shows they sell on dvd.
...and what does it do with those profits? Makes more programmes! Were it not for it's commercial operations, the licence fee would be higher.
No one can say the phil silvers show (bilko) is not one of the best shows ever made, in fact you can list hundreds of great usa shows (jukes of hazards, chips, a team, benson, .......).
Sorry, Bilko is shit. In fact, all those shows you mention are shit, but shit viewed through rose-tinted spectacles.
the uk is probably now one of the most comunist countries going. i mean even china does not have state hospitals.
Sorry, but you're talking bollocks. Do you want the NHS privatised? OK. So presumably you would be happy for us to adopt the US healthcare system?
At the end of the day we live in a capalist system, so do you not find it bizare to have a comunist state tv????
sure it may be independent but its still funded by the state.
Most countries have some form of state-funded TV, even the US.
You could put ads on the BBC, but advocates of this model seem to think that companies have an infinite amount of cash to spend on TV advertising when they really don't. Force the BBC to carry advertising and you will, without any doubt, take ad revenue away from the existing commercial broadcasters, many of which like ITV are already seeing ad revenue in decline. Channel 4's struggling and it doesn't even have pressure to make profits.
Ever wondered why you never hear the bosses of commercial channels moaning about the licence fee? It's because they would be fucked if it was abolished.
and with jr you have to remember that although he is payed alot he does do more than just the friday night show, to my knolage he does a radio show and film 2007 (there could be more, i havent relaly looked into it)
He does one-off things now and again like concerts and awards shows, plus he's had a few series on BBC Three. Maybe he does get paid too much, but I know that if I was in his position I would take the money too, as would most of the people who complain about how much he gets paid.
What amuses me is how people think that if he wasn't on the BBC they wouldn't be paying for him. He could have gone to ITV for more money if he had wanted to and we would be paying more for him than we would now, it's just that it wouldn't be so noticeable because we would be paying for him in the price of washing powder, bars of chocolate, lager or whatever. Just because you don't see a direct debit leaving your bank account to ITV each month doesn't mean they're not getting your money.
He does one-off things now and again like concerts and awards shows, plus he's had a few series on BBC Three. Maybe he does get paid too much, but I know that if I was in his position I would take the money too, as would most of the people who complain about how much he gets paid.
What amuses me is how people think that if he wasn't on the BBC they wouldn't be paying for him. He could have gone to ITV for more money if he had wanted to and we would be paying more for him than we would now, it's just that it wouldn't be so noticeable because we would be paying for him in the price of washing powder, bars of chocolate, lager or whatever. Just because you don't see a direct debit leaving your bank account to ITV each month doesn't mean they're not getting your money.
As Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster why don't we have to pay a license fee for it and why is it allowed to run as a commercial organisation, albeit a very poor commercial organisation.
As Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster why don't we have to pay a license fee for it and why is it allowed to run as a commercial organisation, albeit a very poor commercial organisation.
Allowed to? It's required to run as a commerical organisation. The PSB, no-licence fee, commercial basis of Channel 4 is a result of political horse-trading when it was set up.
The BBC has state funded market dominance. JR only has bargaining leverage cause he's been inside the BBC system for so long and is now so well known. But is he any good? I say he's not.
At some point, watch his ratings plummet and watch the BBC pay to keep him. In the tacky but brutal world of washing powder and chocolate he'd be out the door. High pay for stars with precarious limited lifespans is one thing, but rest assured JR will be comfortably employed for the rest of his days at the Beeb, regardless of whether we watch him or not.
I can barely think of an area of the BBC where there aren't examples of end of life stars droning on long after any commercial organisation would have dumped them.
Chris Moyles is older than me, more miserable than me, fatter than me, yet somehow he's prime time for a radio station with a target audience half his age.
Radio one is right back at the Smashy and Nicey days of the 80's - Old out of touch celeb DJs management won't sack.
Now think of all the talent free ex-Eastenders given lame detective shows and Unfunny sitcoms in their fifth seasons. Between the BBC and the Harry Potter films, worthy brit actors can look forward to working well into their 90's!
wingless
10-21-07, 01:17 PM
The BBC has state funded market dominance. JR only has bargaining leverage cause he's been inside the BBC system for so long and is now so well known. But is he any good? I say he's not.
you may not like him, however, at the moment at least the ratings show that your in a minority on this one, and the bbc has to cater for the majority,
the other way to look at it i guess is if you startup a paysite that you love but no one else likes what would happen? its a sad fact that the needs of the many are the only ones taken into consideration, but thats just business. and at the end of the day the bt gets reviewed every ten yeares or so i think and have to justify the fee
dvtimes
10-21-07, 01:38 PM
you may not like him, however, at the moment at least the ratings show that your in a minority on this one, and the bbc has to cater for the majority,
the other way to look at it i guess is if you startup a paysite that you love but no one else likes what would happen? its a sad fact that the needs of the many are the only ones taken into consideration, but thats just business. and at the end of the day the bt gets reviewed every ten yeares or so i think and have to justify the fee
No, the point of the bbc is to have quality shows rather than just rating shows.
In fact if anything the bbxc is suposed to cator for the miniority.
Just because JR has a popular show is not a reason to pay him lots. If he wants to he should be able to go to itv and get paid high. thats fine, as its a comercial show/station.
Plus having the bbc pay high wages creates an artifical pay syatem, where 'stars' can bounce offers between the networks to get the higest wage.
The bbc can blidly pay what it wants as it does not have the adverts to worry about, if has a blank check.
while such as itv can only pay on the revenue it gets from adverts, so if the 'star' does poorly they get rid. With the bbc they have a nice contract and can get away with a lot more.
BBC is now acting as a comercial station, which it should not be.
I have no problem with the bbc paying stars high wages if, the licence was volentery or paid for by adverts, not by a forced 'tax'.
Being forced to pay a tax means the bbc does not realy have to worry about what it produces, and has no encuragment to become efficient.
Its like the nhs, its purly innoficent as it has at the moment no real need to become efficient.
dvtimes
10-21-07, 01:40 PM
For those who still are happy with the licence (forced) fee, do you realy think radio 1 should be funded by the fee?
Any decent dj on the show will be snaped up by comercial stations.
you may not like him, however, at the moment at least the ratings show that your in a minority on this one, and the bbc has to cater for the majority,
the other way to look at it i guess is if you startup a paysite that you love but no one else likes what would happen? its a sad fact that the needs of the many are the only ones taken into consideration, but thats just business. and at the end of the day the bt gets reviewed every ten yeares or so i think and have to justify the fee
Looks like I'm not wrong.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial
Ross's show isn't even in the top 30. So it has an audience of less than 3.1 million and is less popular than Watchdog or Antiques Roadshow. 18 million for three years and he's spanked by POLICE CAMERA ACTION on ITV and that's license money well spent? I don't think so.
I wonder what Clarkson earns from Top Gear - Top Gear is nearly twice as popular as its nearest rival on BBC2, and at least 50% more popular the Ross.
dvtimes
10-21-07, 01:51 PM
Also for the bbc lovers, lets take todsay, sunday, a weekend.
Today is probably one day of the week people watch tv.
So what has the bbc got to offer on both bbc1 and 2?
I had a look, sod all.
Peak time some crud, Strictly Come Dancing, which to me is just a show to give Bruce Forsyth a wage.
We have Teaching Awards 2007!!!! Well whats rthat to do with anything?
On bbc 2 we have sport most of the afternoon such as snooker. Sorry but do we realy need sport on bbc2 while we now have so many sports channels. And how much does snooker cost to make? 2 presenters and a camraman. cheap tv.
And EastEnders just a repeat of the weeks shows.
Well hardly worth the effort. They may as well save the power and turn the station off for the day.
Althoug Ihad a look what they had on Sat and that was just as poor.
At least some of you enjoyed JR so I guess it was worth paying the license.
Also for the bbc lovers, lets take todsay, sunday, a weekend.
Today is probably one day of the week people watch tv.
So what has the bbc got to offer on both bbc1 and 2?
I had a look, sod all.
Peak time some crud, Strictly Come Dancing, which to me is just a show to give Bruce Forsyth a wage.
We have Teaching Awards 2007!!!! Well whats rthat to do with anything?
On bbc 2 we have sport most of the afternoon such as snooker. Sorry but do we realy need sport on bbc2 while we now have so many sports channels. And how much does snooker cost to make? 2 presenters and a camraman. cheap tv.
And EastEnders just a repeat of the weeks shows.
Well hardly worth the effort. They may as well save the power and turn the station off for the day.
Althoug Ihad a look what they had on Sat and that was just as poor.
At least some of you enjoyed JR so I guess it was worth paying the license.Isn't this the whole point? The beeb endlessly tells us how good it is, and how its the envy of the world and its all about the quality. They repeat it so often its hard to not just go along with the flow. BUT. What's on telly today that I actually want to watch on the beeb? Bugger all. I see soaps, reality and celebutard TV, just like every other channel, nothing more and nothing to justify their tax on my telly.
wingless
10-21-07, 02:13 PM
sundays are allways crap for tv
and with regards to quality over ratings, how do u measure it? if you make a program and it gets high ratings then thats lots of people saying its got that level of quality required to watch it, its difficult to measure quality any other way as everybody has differnt tastes
ApacheAnderson
10-21-07, 02:16 PM
Radio one is right back at the Smashy and Nicey days of the 80's - Old out of touch celeb DJs management won't sack.
I think this is a pretty misguided comment. Chris Moyels won't get sacked because every time the RAJAR stats are released he's increased the listening figures. So why would the management want to sack him? If that was a commercial station he wouldn't get sacked infact he'd probably get a payrise.
In Non-Prime Time slots Radio 1 is playing such a wide variety of great music it's silly infact I'm just about to fireup listen again to checkout Kissey Sellouts show from friday and listen to some music that no other UK radio stations has the balls to play.
The only reason they get away with playing this stuff is that don't have to make any kind of profiit on this stuff and it's great.
Do you think you could have heard John Peel doing what he did on a commerical radio station? The licence fee alows BBC radio to put a lot of time and effort into DJs and Music that wouldn't get through the doors of a commerical station, which all has a knock on effect for the music industry and probably indirectly the UK economy.
It's a fair strech to say that because you don't like Chris Moyles radio 1 is in the same state that it was in the 80s
dvtimes
10-21-07, 02:25 PM
sundays are allways crap for tv
and with regards to quality over ratings, how do u measure it? if you make a program and it gets high ratings then thats lots of people saying its got that level of quality required to watch it, its difficult to measure quality any other way as everybody has differnt tastes
can you tell me what day is good on the bbc?
I supose thursday is the only good day as bbc2 often has one or two comerdies and then question time, that said question time is just a copy of its radio show any questions.
The truth is, the bbc used to be good some years ago with less money.
it has no excuse to be so poor now.
it has an unlimited cash flow (almost), that most stations would envy.
it should not worry about ratings.
We have Teaching Awards 2007!!!! Well whats rthat to do with anything?
On bbc 2 we have sport most of the afternoon such as snooker. Sorry but do we realy need sport on bbc2 while we now have so many sports channels. And how much does snooker cost to make? 2 presenters and a camraman. cheap tv.
In another post you were saying that the BBC should cater to minority audiences, then you bemoan the Teaching Awards, which presumably are of at least some interest to people working in education.
Presumably your criticism of the BBC showing sport is also aimed at ITV? After all, with those many sport channels to which you refer, why not leave it to them?
dvtimes
10-21-07, 03:19 PM
In another post you were saying that the BBC should cater to minority audiences, then you bemoan the Teaching Awards, which presumably are of at least some interest to people working in education.?
the results will be in any teachers newspaper or magazine. there is hardly a need to have it on tv. lets face it, it could be put on the net.
indeed why are there awards anyway for teachers, as they should be doing a good job anyway. i hardly think they need awards for that.
we have awards for everything these days.
i am suprised we do not give awards for best criminal or best supermarket stacker or best person who dilivers your free newspaper.
dvtimes
10-21-07, 03:22 PM
Presumably your criticism of the BBC showing sport is also aimed at ITV? After all, with those many sport channels to which you refer, why not leave it to them?
My point is that there is now no need to have sport on bbc as most other channels do it far better, and often the best sports.
so the bbc end up with a bit of junk, such as hours of snooker. low cost, no real effort. just like darts.
you may as well broadcast snakes and ladders championship and egg and spoon race. its just a case of putting anything on tv to fill a gap.
the results will be in any teachers newspaper or magazine. there is hardly a need to have it on tv. lets face it, it could be put on the net.
The point of minority broadcasting is exactly that there is hardly a need to have it on tv.
Now, do you want minority programming or not? You seem to be changing your mind.
What would you like to see instead, aside from 20 year old ITV dramas?
CLOWN WATCH - Nick Ross investigates sightings of men dressed as clowns scaring women in woods
DOG WANKING - Julian Clary, well known dog lover and homosexual, introduces a new show where Adam, from Leeds, wanks off his - and other people's - dogs in a series of challenges.
CAR PAINTING ON ACID - In a brave new series, Pete Doherty takes loads of drugs then paints people's cars. Inspired by DVT's (from Beer and Bollocks) car.
etc etc
i am suprised we do not give awards for best criminal or best supermarket stacker or best person who dilivers your free newspaper.
Or an award for the best bullshit thread on B+B.
the results will be in any teachers newspaper or magazine. there is hardly a need to have it on tv. lets face it, it could be put on the net.
In that case, why have news on TV at all? It's in the papers!
dvtimes
10-21-07, 04:08 PM
In that case, why have news on TV at all? It's in the papers!
the news is the news.
awrds for teachers is hardly news. its not at all relivent.
under your logic you would put every evbent ever on tv. you would have a prog about me going to pot mail.
you certainly do not need a full show for the awards.
wingless
10-21-07, 04:20 PM
the news is the news.
awrds for teachers is hardly news. its not at all relivent.
under your logic you would put every evbent ever on tv. you would have a prog about me going to pot mail.
you certainly do not need a full show for the awards.
i think the long and short of it is that your pissed because although the bbc does put on shows for minority audiances its not the ones you want to see. mabie you think paying the licence fee means the bbc should arrange its whole viewing schedule around you and what you want on?
dvtimes
10-21-07, 05:12 PM
i think the long and short of it is that your pissed because although the bbc does put on shows for minority audiances its not the ones you want to see. mabie you think paying the licence fee means the bbc should arrange its whole viewing schedule around you and what you want on?
no
what i am anoyed about is that I find the lisence fee out of date, and also the faxct that the beeb is spreading its wings so much its lost track of what it can do well.
recently they have spent millions on a book firm, which i do not belive they should be able to do.
ok, you can say they will use the profits to invest back into the beeb, but should they be doing this? I mean at what point is it wong for them todo this? would you feel it ok, if they bought say a supermarket chain?
you see what if then in a few years the beeb becomes a private firm and sells shares and as such people get rich on all the money you have paid over the years.
why should people go to prison because they cannot afford to pay for the license?
ok, for me i pay it by dd and i can afford it.
but for some people who are not on a big wage, and have children rent and so on, that £100 or so is a lot of cash.
dvtimes
10-21-07, 05:12 PM
At least these days the elderly do not pay the tv licence.
thats why Geezer is always saying he never buys one due to his age.
I think this is a pretty misguided comment. Chris Moyels won't get sacked because every time the RAJAR stats are released he's increased the listening figures. So why would the management want to sack him? If that was a commercial station he wouldn't get sacked infact he'd probably get a payrise.
In Non-Prime Time slots Radio 1 is playing such a wide variety of great music it's silly infact I'm just about to fireup listen again to checkout Kissey Sellouts show from friday and listen to some music that no other UK radio stations has the balls to play.
The only reason they get away with playing this stuff is that don't have to make any kind of profiit on this stuff and it's great.
Do you think you could have heard John Peel doing what he did on a commerical radio station? The licence fee alows BBC radio to put a lot of time and effort into DJs and Music that wouldn't get through the doors of a commerical station, which all has a knock on effect for the music industry and probably indirectly the UK economy.
It's a fair strech to say that because you don't like Chris Moyles radio 1 is in the same state that it was in the 80s
No, entirely wrong. I do like Chris Moyles, but I no longer think he's on the right station. Why are his listening figures so high? Because there's bugger all other nationwide choice for pop radio. Its a self completing circle. No other media organisation has the free money, the access to the airwaves nationally, nor the access to the other media that the BBC has to cross promote it. Given their inbuilt advantages its no wonder he gets high ratings.
What other MOR pop stations are there on FM available nationally?
As for Jon Peel. Popular for years and years, with good audiences, how was he rewarded? His nights were cut from 5 to 2, and he'd spend the rest of the week doing bits and bobs on Radio 4.
The good stuff you like (which I'm 100% sure I would hate!) Is what a yoof pop radio should be playing, and all day, not just at night. Listening to Jo Whilley is cringeworthy, Like a 40 year old maths teacher trying to hang with the kids, or David Cameron trying sound in touch when talking about hoodies.
dvtimes
10-21-07, 05:24 PM
No, entirely wrong. I do like Chris Moyles, but I no longer think he's on the right station. Why are his listening figures so high? Because there's bugger all other nationwide choice for pop radio. Its a self completing circle. No other media organisation has the free money, the access to the airwaves nationally, nor the access to the other media that the BBC has to cross promote it. Given their inbuilt advantages its no wonder he gets high ratings.
What other MOR pop stations are there on FM available nationally?
As for Jon Peel. Popular for years and years, with good audiences, how was he rewarded? His nights were cut from 5 to 2, and he'd spend the rest of the week doing bits and bobs on Radio 4.
The good stuff you like (which I'm 100% sure I would hate!) Is what a yoof pop radio should be playing, and all day, not just at night. Listening to Jo Whilley is cringeworthy, Like a 40 year old maths teacher trying to hang with the kids, or David Cameron trying sound in touch when talking about hoodies.
The reality is, is that raduio 1 is cloned time after time by local stations, and often better. As such there is no need for the beeb to run it. In fact even bbc lovers i do not belive could even suport radio 1 still being run by the bbc.
And as digital radio takes over we will see many of these local shows becoming national.
somtimes i like to listen to classical fm, and they do far far better than the beeb does, plus there are not many adverts.
By the way, how is cnn funded? they have a few adverts but not a great deal (or at least not last time i weatched it) and i find there news is better than the bbc.
wingless
10-21-07, 05:25 PM
no
what i am anoyed about is that I find the lisence fee out of date, and also the faxct that the beeb is spreading its wings so much its lost track of what it can do well.
recently they have spent millions on a book firm, which i do not belive they should be able to do.
ok, you can say they will use the profits to invest back into the beeb, but should they be doing this? I mean at what point is it wong for them todo this? would you feel it ok, if they bought say a supermarket chain?
you see what if then in a few years the beeb becomes a private firm and sells shares and as such people get rich on all the money you have paid over the years.
why should people go to prison because they cannot afford to pay for the license?
ok, for me i pay it by dd and i can afford it.
but for some people who are not on a big wage, and have children rent and so on, that £100 or so is a lot of cash.
its not like is some big secret that you dont know about until after you get a tv. you know when you buy a tv that your going to have to pay that money. saying this i am in favour of being able to have a tv set so that it wont recive bbc and not having to pay the fee
dvtimes
10-21-07, 05:36 PM
its not like is some big secret that you dont know about until after you get a tv. you know when you buy a tv that your going to have to pay that money. saying this i am in favour of being able to have a tv set so that it wont recive bbc and not having to pay the fee
the problem is that even if you do not have a tv, but a computer (with a vdu), that is now classed as a tv, so you still need one.
ok, you could not have a tv. but is that fair to then have to miss out on all the free stations?
Or what if you have a tv and your sercumstances change, you throw it out?
its a bit like having to pay me a internet licence so i can run my site. it makes no odds if you ever look at my site but would need the licence to look at other sites that were free. i am sure you would get rather peezed off, even if others said my site was great.
wingless
10-21-07, 05:39 PM
as far as im aware (and again i havent looked into this a great deal) but you must have the equipment to revice bbc to be charged the fee. so having a tv, hooked up to a dvd played but no airial cable pluged in (or one neer by (you cant just unplug it when they come to check)). i knoew someone that got away with it as he had is power supply cut off and lived without it for a few months, no power, no tv
dvtimes
10-21-07, 05:48 PM
as far as im aware (and again i havent looked into this a great deal) but you must have the equipment to revice bbc to be charged the fee. so having a tv, hooked up to a dvd played but no airial cable pluged in (or one neer by (you cant just unplug it when they come to check)). i knoew someone that got away with it as he had is power supply cut off and lived without it for a few months, no power, no tv
i think that was the case, but i think they have changed that rule.
by the way thats somthing else they spend your money on, hunting down all the non psayers with there little fancy vans. thats going to cost a few milluion a year.
wingless
10-21-07, 05:51 PM
the dector vans are bs, they just look at all the houses in the uk without licences and viset them under the assumption that almost everyone has a tv, why else do u think they want to come in and see if you have a tv? if they could detect it then they wouldent have to
dvtimes
10-21-07, 06:11 PM
the dector vans are bs, they just look at all the houses in the uk without licences and viset them under the assumption that almost everyone has a tv, why else do u think they want to come in and see if you have a tv? if they could detect it then they wouldent have to
while they may wish to come in, they have no legal rights and your alowed to tell them to pee off.
wingless
10-21-07, 06:17 PM
achally i think as the law stands they have but that have to make an appoitment when its convinent for you, they cant just randomly turn up and walk in. if they had no right toi enter and search then i thinka nyone that had a tv and no licence would just refuse them entry
dvtimes
10-21-07, 06:25 PM
achally i think as the law stands they have but that have to make an appoitment when its convinent for you, they cant just randomly turn up and walk in. if they had no right toi enter and search then i thinka nyone that had a tv and no licence would just refuse them entry
they do not have the right but they just give the impreshion to and most will let them in.
well thats what james whale says anyway
i wonder what the situation is if you have a tv in your car.
wingless
10-21-07, 06:28 PM
or even a portable one and are walking down the street watching it. saying that getting bbc clips streamed to your mobile phone???
dvtimes
10-21-07, 06:41 PM
or even a portable one and are walking down the street watching it. saying that getting bbc clips streamed to your mobile phone???
you are not paying to watch bbc shows as we have many comercail stations showing thwem as well as the net with such as youtube, rather what they broadcast on there stations.
but it does make the fee thing daft if you have a portable tv and watch tv outside.
but also they are wanting ecvery student in a student accomidation to have seperate ones rather than a single one for a house.
in that theory it will not be long before you have to have a licence for each tv you have.
recently they have spent millions on a book firm, which i do not belive they should be able to do.
ok, you can say they will use the profits to invest back into the beeb, but should they be doing this? I mean at what point is it wong for them todo this? would you feel it ok, if they bought say a supermarket chain?
The BBC has been involved in publishing books for years, so I don't see what the big deal is. If they make money from commercial operations then that's a good thing because it gets reinvested in programming. The BBC can no longer live on the licence fee alone.
FUCK ITV and their coverage of the F1 today, they should never be allowed to show a live sporting event again. Hamilton's car problems they missed, they had decided to take an advertising break, then again on the pit stop, its a wonder they were not on a commercial break as they took the chequered flag...
The reality is, is that raduio 1 is cloned time after time by local stations, and often better. As such there is no need for the beeb to run it. In fact even bbc lovers i do not belive could even suport radio 1 still being run by the bbc.
somtimes i like to listen to classical fm, and they do far far better than the beeb does, plus there are not many adverts.
By the way, how is cnn funded? they have a few adverts but not a great deal (or at least not last time i weatched it) and i find there news is better than the bbc.
Radio 1 - exists to provide music and some other material to a youth audience. Might not sound like anything distinctive, but few stations actually do this on FM. Most local radio leans towards the older Radio 2 audience. There are plenty of shows on the schedule covering music that simply never gets played on FM, like trance, d'n'b, funk, underground punk and so forth. The situation could change if DAB starts to gain real popularity, but for now Radio 1 is filling a hole.
Classic FM - OK if you want your classical music in easily digestible chunks, but of no use at all if you want to sit down one evening and listen to a whole symphony by Mahler or whoever. If you're a serious listener of classical music, you need Radio 3. As with Radio 1, it also covers music that's unheard elsewhere, such as jazz and world music. There can be no disputing the public service value of 3.
CNN - Roughly half of CNN's revenue comes from on-screen advertising. The other half comes from their share of cable/satellite subscriber revenue.
ApacheAnderson
10-21-07, 09:08 PM
No, entirely wrong. I do like Chris Moyles, but I no longer think he's on the right station. Why are his listening figures so high? Because there's bugger all other nationwide choice for pop radio. Its a self completing circle. No other media organisation has the free money, the access to the airwaves nationally, nor the access to the other media that the BBC has to cross promote it. Given their inbuilt advantages its no wonder he gets high ratings.
What other MOR pop stations are there on FM available nationally?
As for Jon Peel. Popular for years and years, with good audiences, how was he rewarded? His nights were cut from 5 to 2, and he'd spend the rest of the week doing bits and bobs on Radio 4.
The good stuff you like (which I'm 100% sure I would hate!) Is what a yoof pop radio should be playing, and all day, not just at night. Listening to Jo Whilley is cringeworthy, Like a 40 year old maths teacher trying to hang with the kids, or David Cameron trying sound in touch when talking about hoodies.
I still completly disagree with you RE your opinion of Radio 1, but I can no longer continue this argument as you pulled the Jo Whiley trup card. You win.
I still completly disagree with you RE your opinion of Radio 1, but I can no longer continue this argument as you pulled the Jo Whiley trup card. You win.hehe. She was on air last week talking about the new Sony TV ads with the big rabbits - called them Rampant Rabbits at least twice, with not a hint of irony.
ApacheAnderson
10-21-07, 11:39 PM
hehe. She was on air last week talking about the new Sony TV ads with the big rabbits - called them Rampant Rabbits at least twice, with not a hint of irony.
I thought she was outdated before Mark and Lard started to sound a bit past it for the youth audience. I have no idea how she maintains that spot other than the fact it's the only spot that no other DJ wants. Crap listening figures but without the muscial freedom of a late night spot.
fosburger
10-22-07, 10:16 PM
I think they should have some "customer" representation on the board -Consumer groups with voting power to help steer the beeb.
Do they answer to anyone right now?
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.