BBC Trust - no idea engineering experience whatsoever

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:10:01 +0100, Richard L
wrote:

If BBC TV didn't exist to provide a strong alternative, Sky News might
quickly metamorphose into Fox News, and ITV news wouldn't exist at all
because of the expense.

Presumably your suggestion here is that the BBC somehow 'keeps them
all honest' but I'm not sure I agree - surely Sky News could get
'Foxified' all the faster BECAUSE of the existence of the BBC - purely
because it would give Sky a point of difference which the dull 'state'
broadcast sources don't cover, and you can't effectively compete
against a commercial rival by doing exactly the same thing as them.

If the BBC didn't exist then ITV News would not only exist but be
stronger than ever because it would be the only game in town.

It might actually be interesting to see a UK news channel which did
not have to be regulated into having to provide a news service that is
always so duly 'respectful and correct to the politicians who control
the regulator.'
--

In message , Zero Tolerance
writes

If BBC TV didn't exist to provide a strong alternative, Sky News might
quickly metamorphose into Fox News, and ITV news wouldn't exist at all
because of the expense.

Presumably your suggestion here is that the BBC somehow 'keeps them
all honest' but I'm not sure I agree - surely Sky News could get
'Foxified' all the faster BECAUSE of the existence of the BBC - purely
because it would give Sky a point of difference which the dull 'state'
broadcast sources don't cover, and you can't effectively compete
against a commercial rival by doing exactly the same thing as them.

If the BBC didn't exist then ITV News would not only exist but be
stronger than ever because it would be the only game in town.

I actually spat my coffee out at that point .... having worked in ITV
News for a number of years (but no longer) I'm fully aware that it's
only there because it has to be - no more money that is absolutely
essential for the minimum service will ever be spent, and if it could
legitimately be dropped, it would be, in seconds (really).
--
Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. And if he can't
be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that's a good enough
outcome for me.

charles wrote:
In article .com,
Mark Carver wrote:

Richard L wrote:

I wasn't being wholly serious, David, though I can see that I ought to
have added a smiley. But you would surely have to concede that
supplying programme content is what a broadcasting station exists for.
Engineering (however nice) is a means to that end, and not a prime
objective.

I'm too young to remember, but was colour TV introduced because:-

A: The engineers developed a practical solution, and then told the
programme makers they could go and produce their programmes in colour.

Or

B: The programme makers asked the engineers to devise a system so they
could produce their programmes in colour ?

I suspect B is more likely. After all the cinema had started to use colour
well before colour was introduced on tv. But I suspect there wasn't quite
the them/us divide - people worked together.

Maybe, maybe not. The patent for colour on film was owned by KODAC however.
However even before *true* colour was used in cinemas some interesting attempts
were make by doing other things like experimenting with filters. However with
colour as with sound before it it was the program makers that had the choice of
wether & when to use it. The special effects on tv & video today largely came
about because the hollywoods producers told their engineers what they want and
the engineers then found out how to do it.

"Darren Wilkinson" wrote in message
news:45316456$0$8756

Maybe, maybe not. The patent for colour on film was owned by KODAC
however. However even before *true* colour was used in cinemas some
interesting attempts were make by doing other things like experimenting
with filters. However with colour as with sound before it it was the
program makers that had the choice of wether & when to use it. The special
effects on tv & video today largely came about because the hollywoods
producers told their engineers what they want and the engineers then found
out how to do it.

Heh, I don't think Hollywood producers had much to do with Moore's law the
development of the powerful processors that drive such effects. They get
what they are given by the engineers at that moment in time.

"Darren Wilkinson" wrote in message
...

snip

The special effects on tv & video today largely came about because the
hollywoods producers told their engineers what they want and the engineers
then found out how to do it.

I think many/most of the special effects are a bit more "chicken and egg"
than that. At the Hollywood level, the producers and directors just want to
achieve a specific effect and probably wouldn't care if it was done with CGI
or through the use of miniatures if the look was right. I've heard of a
great many cases where the technicians have had to actively persuade the
director to try a new electronic effect rather than going with more tried
and tested methods.

This isn't to say that there aren't SOME directors asking for new
technology...just that it's far from always the way.

Similarly, the range of weird and wonderful digital effects often came from
a manufacturer building a box that did them, then selling it to a production
company that found things to do with them.

Bob

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:10:01 +0100, Richard L
wrote:

If BBC TV didn't exist to provide a strong alternative, Sky News might
quickly metamorphose into Fox News, and ITV news wouldn't exist at all
because of the expense.

Presumably your suggestion here is that the BBC somehow 'keeps them
all honest' but I'm not sure I agree - surely Sky News could get
'Foxified' all the faster BECAUSE of the existence of the BBC

SkyNews existed well before the Beeb decided to copy the format in the form
of News24, it didn't need the latter to keep it honest. SkyNews cannot
become 'Foxified' because of strict plurality and impartiality rules set out
in the Communications Act 2003. Murdoch himself acknowledges that the
channel is basically a 'BBC Lite' when it comes to the establishment bias
and there is nothing he can do about it under the rules.

Anyway, it's a matter of public opinion and the viewership figures, a UK
version of FoxNews may not sit well.

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

Because Parliament has decided on our behalf that broadcasting
is
such
an important medium for informing and educating us and
reflecting
and
developing our culture that it has chosen to provide us with a
public
service at the public expense, via a public corporation
established
for that purpose. Funding this through a licence fee rather
than
general taxation places some separation between the BBC and
government
influence, as well as giving you the opportunity to choose not
to
pay
by not having television. It's not ideal, but Parliament has
so
far
failed to come up with a better formula.

Wrong. It has never tried another formula. We have had the same
forumula
since the 1920s and to date rather than inovate and adapt, the
politicians
have coped out and gone for the usual status quo option.


Alternate forms of funding have been examined by parliament many
times in the past, funny how they always come back to the licence
fee
as being the most workable...



Examined... and then not implemented.

Glanced at more like.


So are you seriously suggesting that they should introduce any hair
brained scheme to fund the BBC (remembering that it needs to keep it
a PSB without the market forces that have made ITV drop all PSB
programming) just to satisfy those who object to the current means of
funding?...

snip

Ironically, the one news service that comes near to challenging
Westminster
is ITV's owned Channel 4 News. And that is an advert subsidised,
state
unfounded, commercial broadcaster.


Err, ITV do not own channel four.



No they don't own Channel 4. But as for Channel 4 News, paid for by
Channel
4, owned by ITV plc.
snip

Well channel 5 buy their news service from Sky, what was your point,
other than attempting to rescue your self from the quick-sand of
ignorance?!

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

snip

A weak BBC caved. They didn't back their journalist, choosing to
bury him.
They recanted thereafter trying to jump back in to bed with the
Government.


That is what happens when the BBC is controlled by the government
yes, but that doesn't mean that the way it's funded is wrong, what
did Sky news air the true facts rather than those that their
pay-master approves of - Sky News (and it's sister station Fox) is
the capitalise equivalent of Tass IMO. Yes the BBC has faults (most
due to political interference) but at least it's not owned buy
someone who no one can (effectively) censure, at least the people who
ultimately control the destiny of the BBC can be censured every 5
years.

"Virgils Ghost" wrote in message
. ..
"Jerry" wrote in message
news:4530f307$0$97241

Hmmm, perhaps you were having a senior moment or two when you
typed
the above, have you forgotten the 'Kelly affair' - hardly pro
Labour....

The Kelly affair was a bit of internecine warfare, the anti-war
establishment left v. NuLabour. It was all made worse by the fact
they were
once best mates, obviously Dyke wasn't getting value for money in
terms of
his donations and the government realised the limits to its
cronyism.


No doubt you would much prefer the sycophantic FoxNews - "Hello Mr
President, yes sir, how high sir, which lake sir"....

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

snip

Precisely. It's because the BBC's standards and output are so
deplorable
that I am up in arms about the BBC, the licence fee, or which ever
part of
the policy you wish to blame.


But scrapping the licence fee would only make things worse, the
problem is political interference over to many years (starting with
Thatcher) were the BBC has been told that they need to be more
commercial in how they run and that they need to justify each
channels existence (i.e. ratings battles with the other
broadcasters) - the licence fee could be a way of protecting what
used to be good about the BBC, if only the BBC were allowed to be
true Public Sector Broadcasters...