BBC3 & 4 Get Slated
 

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" 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.
An independent review ordered by the government today delivers a
scathing verdict on the BBC's digital channels, which are funded by more
than £150m a year of licence payers' money.

However, it praises the BBC's children's channels, CBeebies and CBBC.
CBeebies was recognised as "a triumph" while CBBC described as a
"distinctive service with high quality UK-produced content free from
advertisements".

"I recommend the BBC to stop thinking of BBC3 and BBC4 as niche channels
and start treating them as mainstream channels, like BBC1 and BBC2 but
smaller and more innovative," says Professor Patrick Barwise, the
respected economist who wrote the report.

"What people want from the BBC is more good programmes with broad appeal
that cover a range of genres."

The report, commissioned by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, as part
of the run-up to charter review, also implicitly criticises the
government for allowing the BBC to launch channels that appeal only to
niche audiences.

BBC3 was launched 18 months ago but was borne out of BBC Choice, a
much-derided youth channel conceived as part of former director general
John Birt's blueprint for the corporation in the 21st century.

BBC3 soaks up £99.4m a year while arts channel BBC4 costs £35.2m a year
to run.

Prof Barwise says in his report that the channels largely met their
government remits, but they are still doing little to appeal to viewers
and should do more to attract "digital refuseniks" who have yet to
convert to digital TV.

"The obsession with 25 to 34s is a creative straightjacket from which
BBC3 should be released," he says, adding that both BBC3 and BBC4 should
be relaunched as mainstream mixed genre channels.

"BBC4 should be more selective about showing arts and other programmes
which virtually no one watches."

With BBC1 and BBC2 featuring more public service style broadcasting in
the run-up to charter review, Prof Barwise argues that BBC3 and BBC4
need to broaden their appeal.

Both channels should stop producing news programmes that hardly anyone
watches, said Prof Barwise, who is head of management and marketing at
London Business School.

BBC3's youth-oriented news at 7pm should be axed, he recommends, because
it "achieves nothing and attracts tiny audiences".

The introduction of the nightly news programme was one of the changes
made to the BBC3 schedule by controller Stuart Murphy at the behest of
Ms Jowell, who rejected plans for the channel in its first incarnation
on the grounds it was not distinctive enough.

Instead the money spent on news should be redeployed to be spent on
other factual programming, such as current affairs, science and business
shows.

This would enable BBC3 to "start the evening with strong programming
rather than trying to compete with Channel 4 News and Five News," the
report says. Similarly, BBC4's highbrow news show The World should be
either substantially revamped or replaced.

While Prof Barwise recognises BBC3 has produced a number of successful
shows, particularly comedies such as Little Britain and Monkey Dust and
drama Burn It, it fails to appeal to a wide enough audience.

Its biggest audiences are for repeats of EastEnders and BBC1 spin-offs
from shows such as Fame Academy and What Not to Wear. Innovative shows
such as last week's Flash Mob Opera could muster no more than 94,000
viewers.

BBC4 shows fare little better with audiences rarely exceeding 50,000 -
but repeats of the channel's shows on BBC2 attract reasonable audiences.
Earlier this week a late night repeat of BBC4's Race Age documentary
about racism in the 1960s got 500,000 viewers while National Trust and
Alan Clark Diaries got more than 2 million viewers on BBC2.

Prof Barwise's verdict will increase the pressure on Mr Murphy and the
new BBC4 controller, Janice Hadlow, who recently took over from launch
controller Roly Keating when he was promoted to head up BBC2.

He stresses his conclusions were intended to be "evolutionary not
revolutionary" and that more money should be pumped into BBC4 because it
was most likely to appeal to those without digital TV.

CBeebies is recognised as "a triumph" and CBBC was described as a
"distinctive service with high quality UK-produced content free from
advertisements".

"The BBC's digital channels have many strengths - CBeebies in particular
shows that a channel of substantial public value can be created at
minimal cost.

"But there is room for improvement. BBC3 and BBC4 need to increase their
impact and value for money, while retaining their public service ethos.
Key to this is appealing to a wider constituency, including those
thinking of adopting digital TV."

However they do not escape criticism altogether. The report recommends
some improvements in "tone and style" in CBBC.

Ms Jowell welcomed today's report, saying Prof Barwise's conclusions
would prove "illuminating" as the charter review process continues.

The BBC director of television, Jana Bennett, said the corporation would
"carefully consider the substance of the review, together with the
interesting recommendations and criticisms he has made".

The BBC governors have until November to respond.

Also published today is Ofcom's report on the market impact of the BBC's
digital services. It concludes that the BBC's digital channels have
contributed to digital take-up, although the scale of their contribution
may have been overstated by the corporation.

It adds that new measures should be considered to give greater certainty
to commercial rivals about the BBC's digital plans and that a formal
process should be developed for assessing the likely market impact of
the corporation's new services.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

"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" 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.


Let's hope the Government now gives the BBC a kick to them to get more
viewers to BBC 3 and 4 by putting wider appeal programmes on.

Never had BBC 4 on. BBC 3 just a few times.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group.

"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" 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.

BBC Three is of course just a E4 wannabe in typical BBC 'me too' fashion, Four
is serving its purpose as a ghetto, the less viewers the better as far as
they're concerned, it only reinforces their argument for removing such
programming from BBC One and Two and dumbing down anything that remains.


Az.

David wrote:
"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" 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.


Let's hope the Government now gives the BBC a kick to them to get more
viewers to BBC 3 and 4 by putting wider appeal programmes on.

Never had BBC 4 on. BBC 3 just a few times.


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. One of the most annoying gripes I have with BBC3 is that
when there's a new episode of something, say Spy, because it's repeated
so bloody many times during the week you lose track of whether you've
seen it, or whether it's new. In the end I just give up and, surprise
surprise, Spy is now being shown on BBC2. Not that it was particularly
good in the first place. Somehow, the vast majority of the people they
found were sooo stupid you wouldn't trust them to do anything overtly,
let alone covertly.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:15:58 GMT, "David"
wrote:

Never had BBC 4 on.

So you know all about it, then.

BBC4 is one of the best things the BBC has done since the launch of
BBC2.

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

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

David wrote:

"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" 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.


Let's hope the Government now gives the BBC a kick to them to get more
viewers to BBC 3 and 4 by putting wider appeal programmes on.

Never had BBC 4 on. BBC 3 just a few times.



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. One of the most annoying gripes I have with BBC3 is that
when there's a new episode of something, say Spy, because it's repeated
so bloody many times during the week you lose track of whether you've
seen it, or whether it's new. In the end I just give up and, surprise
surprise, Spy is now being shown on BBC2. Not that it was particularly
good in the first place. Somehow, the vast majority of the people they
found were sooo stupid you wouldn't trust them to do anything overtly,
let alone covertly.


Agreed. I rate BBC4, especially for the foreign language films and
retro-type stuff - an episode of Z-Cars from the 1960s is on tomorrow
(don't let me down video). 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.

IMO, some of the BBC3/4 time should be used (more than now) to
second-show some of the stuff from BBC1/2. If I had to decide though,
BBC3 should get the chop.


Clem

Aztech wrote:
"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" 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.

BBC Three is of course just a E4 wannabe in typical BBC 'me too'
fashion, Four is serving its purpose as a ghetto, the less viewers
the better as far as they're concerned,


I think BBC4 has some really good programmes on it, and I'm pretty much
in agreement that the main problem with BBC TV is BBC1, as this bloke
says:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...325896,00.html

Comparing the funding each channel gets, the amount squandered on BBC1
is bloody incredible, and paying £2m to Graham Norton "to nurture him"
is just a joke. BBC1 gets about £1bn per annum IIRC, yet BBC4 only gets
about £50m. I'd far prefer BBC4 to take some funding from BBC1, because
at least BBC4 will make some interesting programmes.

Apart from BBC News, MOTD, Panorama, Question Time, and the very
occasional thing like Spooks, I can't think of anything that springs to
mind that I watch on BBC1.


it only reinforces their
argument for removing such programming from BBC One and Two and
dumbing down anything that remains.


Yeah, BBC1 seems to be going down the same road as ITV1, i.e. crap.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

Clem Dye wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

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. One of the most annoying gripes I have with BBC3 is
that when there's a new episode of something, say Spy, because it's
repeated so bloody many times during the week you lose track of
whether you've seen it, or whether it's new. In the end I just give
up and, surprise surprise, Spy is now being shown on BBC2. Not that
it was particularly good in the first place. Somehow, the vast
majority of the people they found were sooo stupid you wouldn't
trust them to do anything overtly, let alone covertly.


Agreed. I rate BBC4, especially for the foreign language films and
retro-type stuff - an episode of Z-Cars from the 1960s is on tomorrow
(don't let me down video).


You should get one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/6bz4r


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.


You mean you *can* wait more than an hour for news? ;)


IMO, some of the BBC3/4 time should be used (more than now) to
second-show some of the stuff from BBC1/2. If I had to decide though,
BBC3 should get the chop.


Neither are going to get the chop, so if anything, I agree with what the
author of the report says and stop BBC3 having to target itself at 25-34
year olds, because the vast majority of the comedy that they commission
is aimed at younger people, but it's just ******** really.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

"Alan White" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:15:58 GMT, "David"
wrote:

Never had BBC 4 on.

So you know all about it, then.

BBC4 is one of the best things the BBC has done since the launch of
BBC2.

I draw the line at a six part documentary about the Mann family in German
with English subtitles.

And what's the point in them broadcasting all through the night when it's
just repeats of what went before?

--
Max Demian

"Alan White" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:15:58 GMT, "David"
wrote:

Never had BBC 4 on.

So you know all about it, then.

BBC4 is one of the best things the BBC has done since the launch of
BBC2.

Indeed. It is a bit like the old BBC2 - which because few people could
watch - could experiment with some interesting stuff - or just throw out the
whole schedule to cover cricket or an opera. Look what happened when BBC2
went mainstream.

People dismiss 50,000 as a viewing figure. But how do you weigh 50,000
enthusiastic viewers of challenging material against 5 million couch
potatoes of another soap/makeover? We certainly get told that just 5,000 in
the RAH for a Prom is a distinctive and wonderful triumph for British
culure!

And I think we spend rather more on S4C for not a lot more viewers and,
unlike BBC4, not available to most of those paying for it... Shouldn't we
shining the bright light of accountability and value for money thataway?

--
Stuart

Autumn Sale - register BIZ domains for $4.95
http://www.bizzy.net/

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

What is needed is a government scheme to to educate people so that they
can appreciate public service broadcasting and stop wanting to watching
the commercial rubbish (eg BBC1/2).

You've more faith in the power of education than me, Alan. When I was teaching
we used to say "You can't educate pork."

Bill

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:09:17 +0100, Androo wrote:


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.


It's funny you should say that, because as I was reading this discussuion
I flicked through the channels and accidentally came across an interesting
BBC4 documentary about the days of live drama on TV!

Fred

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:09:17 +0100, "Androo"
wrote:


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.

The point for me about BBC4 is that it is not Radio 4 with pictures
when perhaps it should be. Radio 4 is not an arts and documentary
channel, it has good comedy, science, news, and programmes that are
difficult to fit into a set genre. The problem is with BBC4 is that
it is too narrow and while Radio 4 can laugh at itself and often does,
BBC4 pretensiously takes itself too seriously. Yes, there are some
good programmes on it, but as a brand I cannot stand it.


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.

BBC is patronising drivel, I am in its catchment age, and
unfortunately I have a brain which the schedulers did not realise
people have. It's interesting BBC3 tries to do the comedy, but
actually on Radio the best comedy is not Radio 1 or 2, but 4. BBC3 is
a waste of time, and the BBC needs to do something about it fast.

Alan Pemberton wrote:
David wrote:


Let's hope the Government now gives the BBC a kick to them to get more
viewers to BBC 3 and 4 by putting wider appeal programmes on.


What is needed is a government scheme to to educate people so that they
can appreciate public service broadcasting and stop wanting to watching
the commercial rubbish (eg BBC1/2).

Ah, so now we need the government to tell us what to watch.
Getting more like a nanny state everyday.

I will watch what I want to watch, I do not need the government telling
me what to do.
It is bad enough that I have to pay for a T.v license to keep a
governemt information service up and running.




Never had BBC 4 on.


QED. (Now _there_ was a good show.)



----== 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 =---

Mr Guest wrote:

Being 31 I tend not to rush home to put Channel 4 News on....

Why, because at 31 you consider yourself too old or too young
for the programme ?

In message , Ed
wrote
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:09:17 +0100, "Androo"
wrote:


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.

The point for me about BBC4 is that it is not Radio 4 with pictures
when perhaps it should be. Radio 4 is not an arts and documentary
channel, it has good comedy, science, news, and programmes that are
difficult to fit into a set genre.

Radio 4 also has a crap soap (the Archers) and pretentious arts programs
where so called experts talk ******** for hours on end.

Even in the morning current affairs programs Radio 4 tries to be
everything to all by including a patronising God slot and stage managing
pointless debates between two invited guests.

The day time content can often rival the worst that dumbed down TV can
offer.


--
Alan

"Max Demian" WROTE:

BBC4 is one of the best things the BBC has done since the launch of
BBC2.

I draw the line at a six part documentary about the Mann family in German
with English subtitles.

Actually, that was an excellent series. Do you have a general aversion
towards subtitles?

And what's the point in them broadcasting all through the night when it's
just repeats of what went before?

Well, it does give you a chance to see or record things that you
coudn't see or record earlier on, because there were other things
being seen or recorded at the same time!

John in Wales

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Mr Guest wrote:

Being 31 I tend not to rush home to put Channel 4 News on....

Why, because at 31 you consider yourself too old or too young
for the programme ?



.................or too left wing?

"JohnJ" wrote in message
...
"Max Demian" WROTE:

BBC4 is one of the best things the BBC has done since the launch of
BBC2.

I draw the line at a six part documentary about the Mann family in German
with English subtitles.

Actually, that was an excellent series. Do you have a general aversion
towards subtitles?

No, I just think it's *too* highbrow, and too *much*. How many people have
heard of them? A single hour long program, with clips of "Death in Venice"
and dramatised excerpts from some of his books would be much more useful.

And what's the point in them broadcasting all through the night when it's
just repeats of what went before?

Well, it does give you a chance to see or record things that you
coudn't see or record earlier on, because there were other things
being seen or recorded at the same time!

It's comparatively rare that there are two programs exclusively on DTT at
the same time. In these days of DVRs with multiple tuners, we should be
getting less repeats, not more.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" WROTE:

I draw the line at a six part documentary about the Mann family in German
with English subtitles.

Actually, that was an excellent series. Do you have a general aversion
towards subtitles?

No, I just think it's *too* highbrow, and too *much*. How many people have
heard of them? A single hour long program, with clips of "Death in Venice"
and dramatised excerpts from some of his books would be much more useful.

That would be something that could go out on BBC2 though. BBC4 can
afford (if that's the right word!) to be a bit more specialist.

It's comparatively rare that there are two programs exclusively on DTT at
the same time. In these days of DVRs with multiple tuners, we should be
getting less repeats, not more.

It's very early days for multiple tuners though, isn't it? I didn't
even know there were such things until a few weeks ago!

JJ

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:57:23 +0100, Alan
wrote:

The point for me about BBC4 is that it is not Radio 4 with pictures
when perhaps it should be. Radio 4 is not an arts and documentary
channel, it has good comedy, science, news, and programmes that are
difficult to fit into a set genre.

Radio 4 also has a crap soap (the Archers) and pretentious arts programs
where so called experts talk ******** for hours on end.

Even in the morning current affairs programs Radio 4 tries to be
everything to all by including a patronising God slot and stage managing
pointless debates between two invited guests.

The day time content can often rival the worst that dumbed down TV can
offer.

I'm not arguing that there is not some rubbish on Radio 4, but there
are every week programmes which I enjoy listening to, and not just
channel surfing but make a point of listening to. There are quite a
few programmes that I will quite happily listen to. BBC4 - I don't
know when I last watched BBC4, I have stopped even checking if it has
anything interesting on.

In message , Ed
wrote
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:57:23 +0100, Alan
wrote:

The point for me about BBC4 is that it is not Radio 4 with pictures
when perhaps it should be. Radio 4 is not an arts and documentary
channel, it has good comedy, science, news, and programmes that are
difficult to fit into a set genre.

Radio 4 also has a crap soap (the Archers) and pretentious arts programs
where so called experts talk ******** for hours on end.

Even in the morning current affairs programs Radio 4 tries to be
everything to all by including a patronising God slot and stage managing
pointless debates between two invited guests.

The day time content can often rival the worst that dumbed down TV can
offer.

I'm not arguing that there is not some rubbish on Radio 4, but there
are every week programmes which I enjoy listening to, and not just
channel surfing but make a point of listening to. There are quite a
few programmes that I will quite happily listen to. BBC4 - I don't
know when I last watched BBC4, I have stopped even checking if it has
anything interesting on.


I usually have a least one radio tuned into Radio4, mainly for the news
on my way to work (switching over when the religious nutters are allowed
on air) and the comedy on the way back.

Today I had the misfortune to listen to some tuneless electronic music
in the 'classical style' where the composer suggested that the public
were morons if they didn't understand it.

BBC 4 does seem to be the fan club for this type of programming.
--
Alan

In article , Alan wrote:
Today I had the misfortune to listen to some tuneless electronic music
in the 'classical style' where the composer suggested that the public
were morons if they didn't understand it.

I sympathise. I got all this nonsense ut of my system in my teens, back
in the 1960s, when I thought that since I was interested in electronics,
and liked music, I ought to enjoy electronic music. Accordingly, I bought
records of the stuff and discovered that some of its proponents can be
very pretentious about it. Eventually I was honest with myself about what
I really liked and went back to the real thing.

Rod.

It would seem that the best thing to do is scrap BBC3 and CBBC, which would
give the BBC a 24 hour channel to put ALL their sport on.

That would get folk buying Freeview boxes.

Well it worked for Sky :)

In article , News Will
writes

It would seem that the best thing to do is scrap BBC3 and CBBC, which would
give the BBC a 24 hour channel to put ALL their sport on.

That would get folk buying Freeview boxes.

Well it worked for Sky :)


On the few occasions where BBC have 24hrs worth of sport to broadcast
they already do that on the two interactive channels they have
available.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"News Will" wrote in message
.uk...

It would seem that the best thing to do is scrap BBC3 and CBBC, which
would
give the BBC a 24 hour channel to put ALL their sport on.

That would be OK by me provided they removed all sport from all the other
BBC channels (including news bulletins).

In fact if they did that they could have *two* dedicated sports channels.

--
Max Demian

In article , News Will
wrote:
It would seem that the best thing to do is scrap BBC3 and CBBC, which would
give the BBC a 24 hour channel to put ALL their sport on.

They already have a 24 hour news programme, but still interrupt programmes on
other channels. Why would sport be treated differently?

Rod.

harrogate2 wrote (apparently) in uk.tech.digital-tv on Fri 15 Oct 2004
08:27:27:

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Mr Guest wrote:

Being 31 I tend not to rush home to put Channel 4 News on....

Why, because at 31 you consider yourself too old or too young
for the programme ?



................or too left wing?

Errm, neither really. I tend to look at the BBC News website at work
and listen to the radio news during the drive home, so the news news
(IYSWIM) isn't that important. Liquid News was, more often than not,
an almost ****-take on the more frivolous news items, which is what
made it worth watching.

Given the many other ways we find out about important news events now,
such as e-mails, mobile phone calls and texts, I'm not convinced that
a news programme aired at the same time each evening is of benefit.
The more people that get internet access and catch up on news through
that will reduce further the justification for continuing peak-time
news shows.

There's no reason why the obligation from OFCOM (or whoever) shouldn't
be removed once the analogue switch-off has happened as people will
more than likely have access to BBC News 24, Sky News, ITV News and
others that operate at all hours. I doubt the BBC, ITV and Sky will
get enough new programming to avoid repeats, so the scheduling should
sort itself out.
--
MrGuest
Always, seemingly, on the road to nowhere

Mr Guest wrote:

Errm, neither really. I tend to look at the BBC News website at work
and listen to the radio news during the drive home, so the news news
(IYSWIM) isn't that important. Liquid News was, more often than not,
an almost ****-take on the more frivolous news items, which is what
made it worth watching.

Given the many other ways we find out about important news events now,
such as e-mails, mobile phone calls and texts, I'm not convinced that
a news programme aired at the same time each evening is of benefit.
The more people that get internet access and catch up on news through
that will reduce further the justification for continuing peak-time
news shows.

There's no reason why the obligation from OFCOM (or whoever) shouldn't
be removed once the analogue switch-off has happened as people will
more than likely have access to BBC News 24, Sky News, ITV News and
others that operate at all hours. I doubt the BBC, ITV and Sky will
get enough new programming to avoid repeats, so the scheduling should
sort itself out.

But C4 News (and BBC 2 Newsnight) are very different types of news
programmes, to those you'll find on BBC1, ITV 1, or any of the 24 hours services.

They are (over simplifying) TV's version of broadsheet newspapers.
Despite all the other choices on tap continuously, I still find both programmes
the most useful, and least patronising. (though they still fall into the 'triumph
of presentation over content' trap)

IMHO YMMV :-)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Ah, so now we need the government to tell us what to watch.
Getting more like a nanny state everyday.

Educating you to a level where you *can* appreciate something is not
telling you *to* appreciate it. It is providing you with the wit to
make the choice rather than ignorantly perceiving that choice has
intrinsic value of itself.

I can appreciate things, but we do not all appreciate the same things,
it be a funny world if we did.

I just do not apprecitate having to pay for something I may not want to use.


----== 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 =---