DOGs, Credits and Programme Info - BBC1 5pm today - Points of View

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:32:05 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:

I wouldn't, but then if I was in a supermarket I'd be shopping, not
watching television, so I wouldn't care.

But you would be watching the television if you were shopping for a TV!

;+} ;+}

And many people when buying a TV want to see how TV station "XYZ" appears
on their potential purchase, so the presence of an onscreen logo is
confirmation that they are seeing the demonstration of what they require.

Perhaps you never go to large supermarkets where they sell televisions?

It already is known where it matters, which is in the living rooms of
those who have paid their licence fees and are watching the
programmes.

Obviously the concept of watching TV outside of the living room --
at the public tavern, the snack bar, the train station, the airport,
even some laundromats, etc etc is outside of your experience.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:04:35 +0100, J G Miller wrote:

And many people when buying a TV want to see how TV station "XYZ" appears
on their potential purchase, so the presence of an onscreen logo is
confirmation that they are seeing the demonstration of what they require.

Most of these 'potential purchases' are so poorly adjusted that trying to assess
the quality of anything in a meaningful way is impossible.

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather
Walks and Treks:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks

Dickie mint wrote:
Mark wrote:
Alan White wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:52:14 -0600, "Mark" wrote:

There is. But like everything else, the BBC might be overlooking
certain
matters for the return of various favours. (I scratch your back if you
scratch mine).
Please, who is it?


Broadcast Duty Manager has the daily clout, but the overall man in charge
of all Technical Affairs is the Director of Future Media and Technology.
Modern day equivalent of the Director of Engineering.

BBC still has many engineers, they didn't all leave when BBC Transmission
and BBC Technology was sold off. They were advertising for Broadcast
Engineers to work in the regions a few month ago.


BDM is Radio only?

Any Duty Engineers by other names in TV are either Red Bee or Siemens?

Richard

I remember the slogan "It's your BBC". Probably a number of private
companies use the slogan "It's our BBC" now.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:14:41 +0000, Edster wrote:

Every supermarket I've been to has had a promo DVD playing adverts for
things that they sell running on all the TV sets that are switched on.

Every supermarket you have been to does not include all supermarkets.

Just because you have not recently been to a supermarket which does
not show broadcast tv does not mean they do not exist.

Even dedicated TV shops don't bother sticking an aerial in the back so
that you can see broadcast TV on them any more.

When was the last time you were in a branch of John Lewis?

Why would you need to know what channel was on those TVs? What
would you do with that information if you knew it?

Asking such a question would tend to indicate a deficiency
in the skills of discernment.

In article , J G Miller wrote:
Obviously the concept of watching TV outside of the living room --
at the public tavern, the snack bar, the train station, the airport,
even some laundromats, etc etc is outside of your experience.

The concept of television screens being *displayed* at those locations
is not outside my experience, but that's a bit different from me
watching the programmes, which is something I generally do according to
my own choices at home.

If a screen is displayed in some public place with somebody else's
choice of material on it, why should I care what it is? And in the
other example you gave, if I was shopping for a TV set, I might ask for
something of my choice to be shown on it, and then I would know what it
was. In other words, the information is easily available to anybody who
needs to know; otherwise it doesn't matter.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In message ,
Edster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"ChrisM" wrote:


it seems to me that those who strongly
object are very much in the minority, and so I feel that DOGs are
probably here to stay for now...

Can you think of any other minority that all the broadcasters would
discriminate against in this way? Perhaps those of us who still care
should push for getting it recognised as a visual disability.


But you're not a minority like blind or deaf people, or even people from
different cultures are you...?

You could certainly try, and I'd wish you the very best of luck in
succeeding (seriously)!!!

Maybe being excessively irritated by DOGs and being unable to get used (and
therefore not really noticing them) IS a kind of disability (or maybe the
opposite of a disability). Any psychologists in the house?

Just for the record, I do care to a degree, they annoy me at a fairly low
level, but I am concerned at what the future may bring, it's just that I
believe trying to fight them is futile, I'd rather put my time and effort
into other things...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Maybe being excessively irritated by DOGs and being unable to get used
(and therefore not really noticing them) IS a kind of disability (or maybe
the opposite of a disability). Any psychologists in the house?


That's broadly in line with what I think too.

I'm what you would call hyper-sensitive - or with heightened perception.
Most people would be on average. A small group will also be below average in
perception abilities.

It would be no different from the public's receptivity to compex classic
music or culenary sensitivies.




Just for the record, I do care to a degree, they annoy me at a fairly low
level, but I am concerned at what the future may bring, it's just that I
believe trying to fight them is futile, I'd rather put my time and effort
into other things...




I detest DOG **** and those who dictate DOG ****.

If that's what they want then by all means, but I've suspended paying the
BBC TV Licence and Sky, won't watch the commercial channels that cause
annoyance, and will source my media from unadulterated and unmutilated
sources elsewhere.

I hope those in the industry and fellow viewers who want me to
cross-subsidise their financial interests will accept the consequences of
this arrangement.



Let's however end this myth that The BBC is a mutual public service aiming
at universal broadcasting. It's clearly not a true PSB, it's a stealth
commercial broadcaster adopting commercial tactics, and hiding its policy
making behind "commercial confidentiality". The use of marketing and
targeted marketing is at odds with universality, and the adoption of
practices that discriminate against millions of viewers tastes and
sensitivities discredits the idea of it being owned by the public's good
will.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:25:57 -0000, "Light of Aria"
wrote:


"Edster" wrote in message
.. .
"ChrisM" wrote:

it seems to me that those who strongly
object are very much in the minority, and so I feel that DOGs are probably
here to stay for now...

Can you think of any other minority that all the broadcasters would
discriminate against in this way? Perhaps those of us who still care
should push for getting it recognised as a visual disability.


They have never done any kind of published psychoanalysis of the problem or
analysis of the perception and cognitive processes involved.

I can give you one for free, in laymens terms.

Take the case where you have a camera pan. This is analagous to
turning your head and/or moving you eyes from side to side. The brain
correctly interprets the scene as not moving despite the actual image
changing. If you had an object moving at exactly the same speed as
the head/eyes then the object would actually stay in the same place
relative to your vision, yet the brain correctly detects this as a
moving object.

The human mind processes moving and still objects differently.

Going back to the camera pan on TV. The DOG represents a moving
object relative to a still scene and this often leads to the brain to
concentrate on the out of place object. Therefore the DOG can
distract from the programme.

I would imagine that this would vary from person to person which would
explain why some people are indifferent to DOGs and others hate them.
(apart from the fact that a lot of people just have the TV on without
actually watching it).

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

In message ,
Edster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"ChrisM" wrote:


In message ,
Edster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"ChrisM" wrote:


it seems to me that those who strongly
object are very much in the minority, and so I feel that DOGs are
probably here to stay for now...

Can you think of any other minority that all the broadcasters would
discriminate against in this way? Perhaps those of us who still care
should push for getting it recognised as a visual disability.


But you're not a minority like blind or deaf people, or even people
from different cultures are you...?

You could certainly try, and I'd wish you the very best of luck in
succeeding (seriously)!!!

Maybe being excessively irritated by DOGs and being unable to get
used (and therefore not really noticing them) IS a kind of
disability (or maybe the opposite of a disability). Any
psychologists in the house?

Just for the record, I do care to a degree, they annoy me at a
fairly low level, but I am concerned at what the future may bring,
it's just that I believe trying to fight them is futile, I'd rather
put my time and effort into other things...

Which is why they have got steadily worse over the years, and will
continue to do so.

Do you really think there is any point in trying to halt the progression of
DOGs then?
The only way is for a SIGNIFICANT proportion of viewers(ie advertising
consumers) to threaten to stop watching the channels, or more significantly,
the adverts, and I'm not sure that even that would really work.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Do you really think there is any point in trying to halt the progression
of DOGs then?
The only way is for a SIGNIFICANT proportion of viewers(ie advertising
consumers) to threaten to stop watching the channels, or more
significantly, the adverts, and I'm not sure that even that would really
work.

--



P2P traffic representing 50% of IP traffic.

DVD and Blu-Ray sales maturing.

ITV in terminal decline.

C4 purportedly "predicting" a funding crisis.

Channel 5 sales in decline since they "smarted-up" (dropping their DOG ****
in 2002).

BSKYB growth at a plateau.

TitsUp TV all but dead.




Of course the propping up of the BBC through the licence fee, and ITV's
frantic attempts to creatively account away their terminal decline (can't do
that to their share price though) all seek to King Canute style insulate
Broadcast ****s (directors) from reality.




You're right. It won't work in anything but the very long term.