TV license
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
If this ban was removed soaps and fictional programmes would be full
of characters talking about their latest purchases and how wonderful
they are. On our screens would be actual product names not invented
ones.

This might be less annoying than having many interminable ad breaks,
or maybe not.

To me it would be hell. Unless really part of the plot - which is
unlikely.

On "The Rowan & Martin Laugh-In" some of the best sketches were the
commercials. They got edited out beofre the BBC's audiences saw them.

Velly interesting...;-)

but stupid

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

TV license
 

J G Miller wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:05:55 +0100, Johnny B Good wrote:

The dumbing down of what used to be flagship programs on BBC2

For the convenience of schedulers and ratings, oops, sorry, that should
have been "viewers", these programs are now available on BBC-4.

BBC-4 is the new BBC-2. BBC-2 is the new BBC-1. BBC-1 is the new ITV.

What does that make ITV ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

TV license
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:05:55 +0100, Johnny B Good wrote:

The dumbing down of what used to be flagship programs on BBC2

For the convenience of schedulers and ratings, oops, sorry, that should
have been "viewers", these programs are now available on BBC-4.

BBC-4 is the new BBC-2. BBC-2 is the new BBC-1. BBC-1 is the new ITV.

TV license
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:09:11 +0100, Mark Carver asked:

What does that make ITV ?

The purely ratings driven game show / reality show / crime show "entertainment"
network, where there is no room for arts, nature, regional, religious, serious
current affairs, or engineering/science programming because these types of
programs generate neither the size nor demographics of viewing audience
demanded by the advertising agencies.

TV license
 

Johnny B Good wrote:
The message
from Mark Carver contains these words:

You seem to think we _need_ the ITV channels. Why?

To keep the BBC on their toes ?

Really? I think that it's this very "competition" that's responsible
for the 'New Stylee" programming[1] that's being pushed down our throats
by the 'wet behind the ears' ex-meedja studies producers the Beeb feel
impelled to employ these days.

Yes, although that wasn't the case when there were just four channels in the
beautifully balanced duopoly:-

BBC1/BBC2 vs ITV/C4

(With ITV also financing 100% C4, in exchange for selling their advertising
space)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

TV license
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:33:49 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:

although that wasn't the case when there were just four channels in
the beautifully balanced duopoly:-

BBC1/BBC2 vs ITV/C4

But one has to remember that in those days the ITV companies were kept
on their toes by Lady Plowden and the IBA, whereas today there is only
a "soft touch" regulator OfCon which is only too willing to accede to
the demands of ITV plc to further dilute the terms of their Channel3
licence conditions.

TV license
 

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
But one has to remember that in those days the ITV companies were kept
on their toes by Lady Plowden and the IBA, whereas today there is only
a "soft touch" regulator OfCon which is only too willing to accede to
the demands of ITV plc to further dilute the terms of their Channel3
licence conditions.

Think you may just have missed ITV's income being a fraction of once. But
perhaps you are good at getting blood from a stone?

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

TV license
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:05:55 +0100, Johnny B Good wrote:

The dumbing down of what used to be flagship programs on BBC2

For the convenience of schedulers and ratings, oops, sorry, that should
have been "viewers", these programs are now available on BBC-4.

BBC-4 is the new BBC-2. BBC-2 is the new BBC-1. BBC-1 is the new ITV.

Yes but...

The Parlimentary select committee on broadcasting or whatever it was called,
ordered the BBC to dumb down BBC-4. They said it did not appeal to a wide
enough audience to justify licence fee money as it was.

So we have what our wise elected representaives dictated.

Roger R

TV license
 

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:27:52 +0100, Roger R wrote:

So we have what our wise elected representaives dictated.

Is this not further evidence that the BBC is not free from government
interference and that the notion that the funding method of the TV receiving
licence ensures this, is just a myth, as it has always been?

TV license
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

Oh. Then the Murdoch group should be well at the front in making money out
of this. And pushing all the others towards bankruptcy. Rather like
they've done with TV.

James Murdoch has just had a nice rant at the Edinburgh Festival, took
out his BBC wax doll and stuck a boxful of pins in it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...s-murdoch-bbc-
mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival

Partial quote: "Murdoch added that the BBC's news operation was
"throttling" the market, preventing its competitors from launching or
expanding their own services, particularly online. News International,
the News Corp subsidiary that owns the company's British newspapers,
including the Sun and the Times, is currently considering introducing
charges for all its websites."

Translation: "Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!! 'Snot fair! *stamps foot*
Waaaaahhhh!!"

The comments following the article are also well worth a read.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png