1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I've already told you I do not support Murdoch, and yet what have
you done now, you've accused me of the same thing yet again.

You do support Murdoch. Whether you appreciate what you're doing or
not is another question.

For the 3rd time, I do not support Murdoch. I happen to think that changing
to a subscription-based service would improve BBC programming by severing
the link between having to pander to the lowest common denominator.

You're wrong. You're stupid. You don't know what you're doing.

Stop supporting Murdoch.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Radio and the Interenet are different arguments,

No they're not. Your 'solution' would destroy the lot.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Because then they would be obsessed by subscription sales, and there's
not single example of a subscription-based organisation successfully
providing Public Service Broadcasting in this country.


I've already used the example of the US satellite digital radio services
that are subscription-based and provide content that is not provided by
ad-funded radio.

So list the good programmes that are on such a system today. For the cost of
the licence fee we'll be expecting a range and quality similar to the one I
posted about yesterday's programmes on the BBC - and with enough variety for
someone with quite different tastes to make a similar list.

And I've also mentioned that Jazz FM ceased to exist in the UK, but I
would bet that if a subscription-based radio system were launched there
would be a jazz station.

I'll also bet that there is a not bad Jazz coverage on Radio 2 and Radio 3.

[Snip]

I saw you mention science programmes in this thread, and Horizon is a
perfect example of something that's dumbed down for the masses - that's
happened because the BBC wants to make it more accessible, because it has
to appeal to everybody. If it was subscription-funded I think it would be
more daring and provide less accessible programming without having the
worry of being criticised by the media for only getting X thousand viewers
to certain programmes, which it currently does get stick for.

Though it has recently produced world's best science programmes in other
areas. In any case if you don't want science to be dumbed down science try
Radio 4 and much is even available as listen again with notes and links to
further study.

The BBC is obsessed by ratings, which for a public service broadcaster is
wrong, and it leads to all the ****e that they do provide. If they were
subscription-funded then they could take a more holistic view to
programming, so that those of us that want to be stretched intellectually
can be. Like you, I can't even remember the last time I was stretched
intellectually by watching a programme. No, I tell a lie, it was a
programme on C4 about M-Theory in physics - not even on the fking BBC! The
BBC is crap when it comes to things like this.

I realise that life after Joad and Bronowsky is a bit of a let down - but are
you sure you followed Saturday's programme on Liquid Crystals?

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Java Jive wrote:
Because then they would be obsessed by subscription sales, and
there's not single example of a subscription-based organisation
successfully providing Public Service Broadcasting in this country.

I've already used the example of the US satellite digital radio services

And I've already countered it, so ...

[snip all that]

I saw you mention science programmes in this thread, and Horizon is a
perfect example of something that's dumbed down for the masses - that's
happened because the BBC wants to make it more accessible, because it has
to
appeal to everybody.

Quite a few 'Horizon' programmes are certainly bad, and last's night's
'Volcano Hell' on BBC4 was a dire example, as was another recently repeated
'Neanderthal'. Both used irritating sudden drum beats or bursts of sample
noise to emphasise points quite unnecessarily (or else because they presumed
the audience would be falling asleep, and so would need waking up - INSW).
There was also 'The Hawking Paradox' mentioned by someone else in this
thread, which made far too much of the professional rivalries, far too much
myth-exploding SH, and far too little of the actual science.

But equally there have been one or two quite good ones - 'Snowball Earth',
'Earthquake Storms' - and one or two acceptable ones - 'Global Dimming'
& 'The Big Chill'.

The generally agreed consensus here seems to be that there is too often too
little science and much too much focus on the personalities involved, and
that mathematics is a land where Horizon fears to tread. And I would
certainly go along with this.

By way of contrast, it wasn't always like this ...

I remember one Horizon about research into sharks, including an experiment
to test what colours they could see. To show how clear this programme was,
I will now 30 years later recount how the experiment worked, without the aid
of a safety net. Sharks have a membrane that can cover each eye to protect
it. This can be induced by a mild electric shock. The experimenters
started showing a flash of light fractionally before the shock, and so
induced a Pavlovian response to the flash of light - ie: the lemon sharks
would subconsciously learn to flick the membrane in response to the light,
eventually without needing the electric shock. Then all they had to do was
use coloured lights; if the shark flicked the membrane in response to the
flash, it must have been able to see that colour of light.

But, note, that excellent programme was made under very similar funding
arrangements as today, it was *NOT* made under any alternative such as
subscription that you are suggesting for the BBC. Funding arrangements
haven't changed, what has changed is our culture.

Science is almost a dirty word these days, and the BBC's treatment of
Horizon is just another reflection of that. If you were to argue that as a
PSB they should be taking a lead to counter this trend, rather than tagging
along dumbly with the lynch mob, then I would agree with you, but I don't
think the way the BBC is funded has anything to do with it.

If it was subscription-funded I think it would be more
daring and provide less accessible programming without having the worry of
being criticised by the media for only getting X thousand viewers to
certain
programmes, which it currently does get stick for.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat yourself, there is no UK and
seemingly little international evidence to support your view - the vast
majority of the evidence points in the opposite direction.

In a previous thread you thought a problem with the BBC is that it is run by
Media Studies graduates. If the funding arrangements change as you suggest,
are all these people suddenly going to take Science second degrees? Of
course they're not.

The BBC is obsessed by ratings, which for a public service broadcaster is
wrong, and it leads to all the ****e that they do provide. If they were
subscription-funded then they could take a more holistic view to
programming

That is naive hogwash, they'd simply be even more obsessed by subscription
numbers and sales than they currently are about ratings.

, so that those of us that want to be stretched intellectually
can be. Like you, I can't even remember the last time I was stretched
intellectually by watching a programme. No, I tell a lie, it was a
programme
on C4 about M-Theory in physics - not even on the fking BBC!

IMS, another Anglo-American co-prod.

The BBC is crap
when it comes to things like this.

As above, it wasn't always so, and isn't always so now.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

[ ... ]

... all a qualification means is that you remembered a certain
snippet of information on a certain day, it in know way says
anything
about how talented you are - just that you can store and retrieve
facts

Beyond satire.

And not even defensible as a typo.

Say the moron who thinks that advertising is free and thus cost the
consumer nothing.....

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
snip

Absolute nonsense, and that proves that you've never taken a
degree-level
exam in your life.

So how come you are not working in the broadcast industry whilst many
who don't have a degree are?...

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

To turn that round, should these people that watch BBC channels
once
or twice per year be made to pay £130?

And think about all the people that watch very little BBC TV,
but are
included in the 85%. Again, they aren't getting value for money.

Now don't start trying to argue on my behalf!

I'm quite happy to pay my licence fee to watch Dr Who / Casualty
/
Hustle / whatever and listen to Radio 4. It averages out at 1-2
hours
of TV per week sometimes. I'm quite happy with that.


Okay, but there will still be a large number of people - millions
of
people - that don't watch much BBC TV and don't feel it offers them
good
value for money. And radio is a separate discussion, because
although
funding comes from the licence fee people don't have to buy a TV
licence to
listen to it.

Nor does one have to own or use a TV, you seem to keep forgetting
that little fact of life, just as those who own and use a car has to
pay the full VED even though they might only use their car once a
week to travel two miles to the shops or church.



I'm deeply unhappy about the lack of accountability, but that's a
separate argument. I don't see ITV, Sky etc being more
accountable.


But we don't directly pay for ITV, Sky etc.


You might be a shoplifter but the majority pay for their items!
Anyway, we don't pay directly for the BBC either, as has been pointed
out to you.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

snip

You are forced to watch commercial channels, are you?

ATM, no, but if the BBC were forced to become a comercail
broadcaster
we would.

Not even then.

There was a time (within living memory) when there was only one TV
channel.
No-one was forced to watch it. Millions didn't.

OK, it's fair to say that we are never going to replicate that
situation
again, and that television has become integral to domestic life,
but even
so, no-one is forced to watch TV.

If you want to take that train of thought, there is no need to scrap
the TVL as no one has to own a TV.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...


But, note, that excellent programme was made under very similar funding
arrangements as today, it was *NOT* made under any alternative such as
subscription that you are suggesting for the BBC. Funding arrangements
haven't changed, what has changed is our culture.

Science is almost a dirty word these days, and the BBC's treatment of
Horizon is just another reflection of that. If you were to argue that as
a
PSB they should be taking a lead to counter this trend, rather than
tagging
along dumbly with the lynch mob, then I would agree with you, but I don't
think the way the BBC is funded has anything to do with it.

....

The BBC's Educational output both for secondary schools and co-productions
with the OU might not support that hypothesis.

There is the further assumption that anyone really interested in such
topics will be sufficiently au fait with the concept of time shifting
and setting a VCR timer and sufficiently motivated that the unusual start
times of many such programmes won't represent a hindrance to their
enjoyment.

In this day and age only the stubborn and the stupid are in any postion
to demand "interesting" programmes at Prime Time, when as Eny Fule No
prime time sheduling is based on inertia and LCD programming. And time
shifting gives plenty of alternatives for those willing to make the
effort, rather wallow in self pity, with their nauseating demands
for their "needs" to be met.


michael adams

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com, Arfur
Million wrote:
Well, John, you've progressed from being patronising to insulting. So you
post a list of prgrammes

A long list of programmes that happen to be available today (Monday). In
response to a short list of programmes from someone trying to prove that there
was nothing worthwhile on BBC.

that you like

That I think are worthwhile - but then they were only a very small extract
from today's programmes and others would have made quite a different
selection.

That *you* think are so worthwhile that *everyone* has to contribute to
them.


as if that somehow justifies the licence fee,

Whilst you suggest that it doesn't ...

People may or may not, according to taste, think that the quality of
BBC programmes justifies the amount of money that they spend on it, but
it certainly does not justify forcing other TV watchers to contribute
to it.


and get all defensive when someone else says that he doesn't
find them interesting.

.. but don't bother to consider what's available.

You really are good at patronising. After resuming telly watching
earlier this year, I have actively sought out decent quality viewing.
It really is hard to find. For BBC, most of my knowledge is restricted
to BBC1 and BBC2 since that is all I can currently receive (I'm working
on that) but from what little I've seen of BBCs 3&4 I can't say I'm too
hopeful of finding much quality. If we exclude stuff that is not made
for TV (eg films and sport) the list of programmes that I find really
good on BBC goes down to nil, though there are one or two that I find
passable.


I am not anti-BBC, if people enjoy it then let them enjoy it, but without
me subsidising it. I asked you before if you had considered the possibility
that our tastes differ, and you obviously hadn't.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is nothing in today's output of the
BBC that suits your taste? If yes then I'd be much more inclined to question
your taste than the output of the BBC!

Question my taste, then, just don't demand that I contribute to your
enjoyment.

Regards,
Arfur