I think BBC4 has some very good programmes on, although admittedly many
of them eventually end up on BBC1/2. BBC3 on the other hand is, IMO,
diabolical.


Yes, that sumns it up for me too. I find myself watching BBC4 more and more.
It reminds me of Radio 4: even when what's on isn't something you would've
chosen to watch, it's often still interesting.

I just hope they don't feel the need to dumb BBC4 down. At the moment, it's
just a bout the last place on TV you can go for some intellectual
stimulation and I love the music they've been choosing to show us recently,
like Gillian Welch (even if the presenter didn't know how to pronounce
Gillian) the other day.

BBC3 though. What on earth is that all about? I can never find one thing to
watch. except perhaps 'Body Hits' if there's nothing else.

Androo

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

Owen Gibson, chief reporter
Wednesday October 13, 2004

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money"

I'll wave the flag for BBC4. IMO it is excellent value for money, I watch
little else other than BBC2 newsnight and Ch4 news. It sets the standard
against which other channels just don't come up to the mark.

Yes, many prgrammes are minority interest and I don't expect to find them
all of interest, but I'd rather have the option of not wanting it on for a
evening rather than have no choice but the mindless monotony presented by
other channels.

Roger

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money" and do little to connect
with viewers or drive the growth of digital TV, says a long-awaited
government report that will give further ammunition to the critics who
think they are a waste of licence payers' money.

Yep. I'll agree with that.

BBC3 was vaguely interesting in its early days, but I have hardly
watched it since they killed off Liquid News.

BBC4 suffers too much from too few programmes, so they repeat them too
much.

Ric.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'


The problem here is that BBC3 is either stuff repeated from BBC1 and 2
or programmes that are put on 3, is repeated again on BBC1 or 2.

BBC4 problem is the people it is aimed at, there is not enough people
with the interest in wathing Chinese films with subtitles or Opera.

I agree BBC3 and 4 is poor value for money, they are even worse value
for money for people that have not got acess to them.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Clem Dye wrote in :


BBC3 isn't too bad, but what really f*cks me
off is that any film shown is broken-up into 60 minute chunks by 60
Second news broadcasts - utter bollox.

60 secs news and about 5 mins of the Beeb's relentless self-promotion
adverts, usually in incomprehensible Scotch

mike

"mike ring" wrote in message
52.50...
Clem Dye wrote in :


BBC3 isn't too bad, but what really f*cks me
off is that any film shown is broken-up into 60 minute chunks by 60
Second news broadcasts - utter bollox.

60 secs news and about 5 mins of the Beeb's relentless self-promotion
adverts, usually in incomprehensible Scotch

mike

I like getting incomprehensible with Scotch. Cheers!

Richard.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:24:39 +0000 (UTC), mike ring
wrote:

...usually in incomprehensible Scotch

'Scotch' is a drink :-)

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
http://tinyurl.com/4gday

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:54:04 +0100, Alan White
wrote:

| On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:24:39 +0000 (UTC), mike ring
| wrote:
|
| ...usually in incomprehensible Scotch
|
| 'Scotch' is a drink :-)

Which makes you incomprehensible?


--
Dave F

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:07:01 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

Which makes you incomprehensible?

I'm English, if that helps.

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
http://tinyurl.com/4gday

Ricky wrote (apparently) in uk.tech.digital-tv on Wed 13 Oct 2004
17:23:30:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...1326226,00.htm
l

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money" and do little to
connect with viewers or drive the growth of digital TV, says a
long-awaited government report that will give further ammunition
to the critics who think they are a waste of licence payers'
money.

Yep. I'll agree with that.

BBC3 was vaguely interesting in its early days, but I have hardly
watched it since they killed off Liquid News.

BBC4 suffers too much from too few programmes, so they repeat
them too much.

Ric.

Liquid News was one of the only things I watched on BBC3, at least
it was a bit of a laff after a day at work and the satellite link-
ups were hilarious if only because they were hugely speculative
about any story they were supposed to report on...

Given the number of viewers with internet access, ability to text,
able to phone and leave them a message, this "This week we have
mainly decided that you can't have Liquid News but something more
poncey instead" attitude to the people paying for the programmes is
not really acceptable.

Being 31 I tend not to rush home to put Channel 4 News on whereas I
used to try and get back to see Liquid News. Having said that,
Christopher Price's untimely death may have made them think they
needed to change things - I personally think they would have made a
better job of celebrating his contribution to it by retaining the
format.

Being at the computer I'm missing what's on now, which seems like
programmes I would never watch anyway...
--
MrGuest
Always, seemingly, on the road to nowhere