BBC cuts: Times item today

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

Bill

On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

Bill

I am hoping that they will not cut 'This Week' as suggested today in
another newspaper.


--
Michael Chare

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

Bill

The first thing that should be done is for the BBC to stop paying to show
the lottery. Either show it for free or allow another channel to show the
bloody thing, but for the BBC to be paying to screen it is an abomination.

The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels
for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce
and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and
are those which won't be produced by the other channels.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D"
wrote:


The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels
for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce
and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and
are those which won't be produced by the other channels.

That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all
licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want.

When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new
companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political
justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist
if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:06:19 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

A few comments:

1. If many potential viewers are asleep between 10.35 and 6 am and
Question Time is a 'flagship show' then wtf is QT broadcast at 10.40?
2. The idea of transmitting HD programmes in the early hours makes
sense but I thought that was what the HD channel did anyway. Maybe
they mean merging BBC2 with BBC HD throught the night. I would have
thought the savings there would be minimal.

3. What about simulcasting TV and radio? I have already written to
Feedback to suggest that the tedious Broadcasting House on Radio 4
could be replace with the Andrew Marr Show soundtrack.

4. I assume there is no saving in transmission costs by shutting a
channel when they are part of the same multiplex. I don't imagine
there is much original programming shown through the night, so where
are the savings? Is BBC3 or BBC4 at risk?

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:18:48 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D"
wrote:


The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels
for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce
and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and
are those which won't be produced by the other channels.

That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all
licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want.

When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new
companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political
justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist
if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector.

Wtf should anyone pay to show the lottery. Surely the lottery needs
the publicity more than the TV companies need the lottery. They
should charge National Lottery a fee and whoever offers the lowest fee
should show the lottery. That would be my idea of competition.

On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

Bill

Yeah, there was something similar in the Telegraph. TBH, I don't have a
problem with some programmes being repeated on another channel later in
the week -- I'm not a fan of iPlayer and I can't be arsed to connect my
TV et al to the internet. I would however object to BBC2 becoming a
part-time BBC News channel. IMHO, if the BBC needs to make cuts, get rid
of BBC Parliament and BBC News. I think that their news coverage on
BBC1/2/4 etc. is more than adequate -- BBC News was only launched as a
spoiler to Sky News anyway. If push came to shove, get rid of BBC Three
too -- that was supposed to fend-off the likes of E4, but as E4 shows
largely dross nowadays there's not a lot to choose between them. I have
watched a few programmes on BBC Three, but given the high number of
repeats now there's more than enough free airtime on the other channels
to take the few good programmes that do appear on BBC Three first, such
as Being Human. Cut a few radio channels too, come to think of it.


Clem

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:18:48 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D"
wrote:


The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels
for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce
and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and
are those which won't be produced by the other channels.

That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all
licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want.

When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new
companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political
justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist
if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector.

If there is to be competition between the BBC and all the others it
should at least be with the same conditions applying to all the "players".
So they should all be subject to the same commercial pressures and have
to abide by the same scheduling rules (i.e. gaps between and during
programmes).


--
http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/23...2433931774.php

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:54:29 +0000, Clem Dye wrote:

On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

Bill

Yeah, there was something similar in the Telegraph. TBH, I don't have a
problem with some programmes being repeated on another channel later in
the week -- I'm not a fan of iPlayer and I can't be arsed to connect my
TV et al to the internet. I would however object to BBC2 becoming a
part-time BBC News channel. IMHO, if the BBC needs to make cuts, get rid
of BBC Parliament and BBC News. I think that their news coverage on
BBC1/2/4 etc. is more than adequate -- BBC News was only launched as a
spoiler to Sky News anyway. If push came to shove, get rid of BBC Three
too -- that was supposed to fend-off the likes of E4, but as E4 shows
largely dross nowadays there's not a lot to choose between them. I have
watched a few programmes on BBC Three, but given the high number of
repeats now there's more than enough free airtime on the other channels
to take the few good programmes that do appear on BBC Three first, such
as Being Human. Cut a few radio channels too, come to think of it.

I would certainly not support losing BBC News. The function of
informing goes back to the days of Lord Reith. There may be some
savings, such as using more automated output at off-peak times.

News coverage is not 'more than adequate' through the night for
example on other channels - and certainly not on holidays such as
Christmas Day when the news virtually disappears from the main
channels even though events continue to take place throughout the
world (including places where there is not the same enthusiasm for
celebrating Christmas).

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:18:48 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D"
wrote:


The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels
for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce
and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and
are those which won't be produced by the other channels.

That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all
licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want.

When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new
companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political
justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist
if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector.

Come off it!
That was 'one' of the arguments for ITV at the time. But a hell of a
lot has changed in the past half century.