BBC cuts: Times item today

charles wrote:

who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the
commercial stations appeared

And anyway BBC local radio doesn't compete in an real sense with local
commercial stations. The audiences are very different and there isn't
much overlap.

Bill

Mark Carver wrote:

BBC Local Radio generally was a dire peak hours only service listened to
by few, (even after it was able to broadcast on MW from '72) until ILR
came along and forced it to wake up.

I wonder if funding increased at that time, with the Beeb realising that
it needed to offer a half-decent service.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
charles wrote:

who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the
commercial stations appeared

And anyway BBC local radio doesn't compete in an real sense with local
commercial stations. The audiences are very different and there isn't
much overlap.

Indeed so, but ILR in the 70s had a huge influence on it, and in some cites
audience levels ended up neck and neck, but, as you say with little crossover.

Radio Trent/BBC Nottingham and Radio City/BBC Merseyside are two prime
examples, they kept each other on their toes, and the combined audience
dwarfed that of the national stations in those areas.

All been ****ed away now of course, the 1991 Broadcasting Act saw to that, and
Mark Thomson appears to be constructing a coffin for BBC LR.


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

www.paras.org.uk

Cut what, hint, jpgs are not textual.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Michael Chare" [email protected] wrote in message
o.uk...
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

I agree totally. When you have a limited pie, you have to try to divide it
up in the most efficient manner. The big problem of course is that the semi
commercial arm of the BBC relies on selling some of its progs abroad. This
does not include the lottery obviously, so the sooner this ends up on Ideal
World the better.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Doctor D" wrote in message
o.uk...

"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.

Brian Gaff wrote:

Cut what, hint, jpgs are not textual.

Given News International's pay wall, a text link isn't easy in this case
without OCRing the scan of the physical newspaper ...

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


"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.

That can't be right surely? The National lottery should be paying
them. Perhaps I should go to the filling station and get them to pay
me to fill up.

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.

Hear hear. They don't need to compete with the commerical channels so
why do they copy some of the most irritating techiques like DOGS,
credit squeezing and my most hated one, advertising the next programme
/during/ the previous one.

If they really want to save money then they should scrap daytime TV.
It's all sh*te anyway. Bring back OU programmes; at least people
would learn something.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:43:06 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

charles wrote:

who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the
commercial stations appeared

And anyway BBC local radio doesn't compete in an real sense with local
commercial stations. The audiences are very different and there isn't
much overlap.

The BBC local radio station near here broadcasts exactly the same kind
of crap as the commercial stations and you can hardly tell them apart
- crap pop music and stupid DJs talking drivel. The only difference
is the adverts. I would say they are in direct competition.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 23/03/2011 18:10, Doctor D wrote:

"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.
Absolutely right, I couldn't agree with you more. They should NOT be in
competition with others to show the best crap with public money.
Don

On 23/03/2011 20:36, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:28:08 +0000, lid wrote:


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


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

Look at it another way.

The TV licence fee is a subscription which pays for BBC output. Because
it is a compulsory subscription all licence payers have a right to be
treated equally and to get the sort of programmes they want.



No, not what they want, What they need.
Don