Murdoch - take a hike

[BadgerBadger]

Yet another corporation having a squinny about how the freedom of the web is denting their huge profits and power base - jog on fella

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8227915.stm

[Thedelldays]

Yet another corporation having a squinny about how the freedom of the web is denting their huge profits and power base - jog on fella

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8227915.stm

 

 

to be fair...the BBC get money from people who are forced to pay for it..

[BadgerBadger]

to be fair...the BBC get money from people who are forced to pay for it..

 

so they need to adapt their business to cope with that - BBC content is way better than most because of the guaranteed income which only ever raises the bar for others to follow, a good thing in my eyes

[Saintandy666]

to be fair...the BBC get money from people who are forced to pay for it..

 

No, they don't have to pay it. You can chose not to have TV And anyway, anyone with half a brain can see the licence fee is great value for money.

[Colinjb]

No, they don't have to pay it. And anyway, anyone with half a brain can see the licence fee is great value for money.

 

It's one of the few good things about this country, ensures relative freedom of media.

[revolution saint]

If the license fee helps drive The Sun and Fox News out of business then that can't be a bad thing, can it? It makes me laugh when little Murdoch bemoans independant journalism - since when has News Corp been unbiased? Voicepiece of very rich man intent on getting richer IMO.

[tombletomble]

I logged on this eve to start a thread about this after reading the article on the BBC website.

 

The Murdochs have no interest in protecting anything except forthe profit margins of News Corp.

 

For the money that we pay in licence fees we get a much better (and much less biased) service than the Murdochs will ever provide.

 

I really hope that their plan to charge for internet news fails. I know which site I will be logging on too for my news fix.

[Jimmy_D]

Murdoch in finally seeing flaw in plan to charge for online newspapers shock

[BadgerBadger]

Murdoch and his cronies always remind me of OCP (couldn't remember that so had to look it up) from Robocop

[St Landrew]

Murdoch is a great one to talk about media domination. There's another company who'll never get a cent of me or mine if I have say in it.

[Seaford Saint]

You will find all our major parties in the run up to the next election whenever that might be seeking out Rupert Murdoch in an an effort to get support from his papers. So our democratic election is decided in no small part by an Australian. Cynically, if Cameron meets with Murdoch and promises to tackle the Beeb he'll have a landslide victory courtesy of the Sun etc.

[Johnny Bognor]

You will find all our major parties in the run up to the next election whenever that might be seeking out Rupert Murdoch in an an effort to get support from his papers. So our democratic election is decided in no small part by an Australian. Cynically, if Cameron meets with Murdoch and promises to tackle the Beeb he'll have a landslide victory courtesy of the Sun etc.

 

Rupert Out

[Viking Warrior]

I tend to agree with murdochs. comments about the BBC

 

They are so far up there own arses. They seem to want to make the news. influence our way of life and the way we do things in society. They are so biased and divisive.

 

Look at the way they do sport and particular Alan Green

Look at the way they are harping on about Afghan. never saying anything positive. They kept on with a constant neatve campaigna about our involvement in Iraq.

 

 

Murdoch Jnr is correct in what he says and I hope he succeeds in tackling the BBCs own agenda.

[Red_No_7]

murdoch rules britain.

 

NFT :mad:

[St Landrew]

They are so far up there own arses. They seem to want to make the news. influence our way of life and the way we do things in society. They are so biased and divisive.

 

While you were typing that out, didn't it occur to you that your statement may be applied to almost all news agencies and deliverers of programme material..?

 

Personally, I would remove 90% of the BBC output because it doesn't appeal to me. But I recognise that other people wish to view those programmes that I would avoid. I can't remember when I last watched a TV programme on a commerical station, the quality is so boiled down to catch the greatest numbers.

 

Murdoch isn't having a go at the BBC because they dominate the media, it's because he's having a bit of a hard time in the media environment, and he can't get any progress at present. He'd shut up in a split-second if Sky were doing better than they are at present.

 

Remember this - when you pay your media licence, you get the BBC and no advertising. With a terrestrial commerical station you get advertsing, and you pay for programme content through slightly higher brand pricing. When you pay for Sky, you pay directly, similarly to how you would pay for the BBC. But you get advertsing too. So you are paying to be advertised to. This means that Sky can fill less of their schedules with programmes - the material you actually want. Did you know that the average 1 hour programme is filled with 15-20 minutes of advertising, on commerical TV..? So what, you may say. Well, if I'm directly paying for something, I want the programme alone and my 20 minutes back. Ta. OK, you say, but you have to have the BBC to get anything. True, and thank goodness for that. At least GB has a broadcaster of quality that the others have to measure up to.

[sotonjoe]

No, they don't have to pay it. You can chose not to have TV And anyway, anyone with half a brain can see the licence fee is great value for money.

 

 

If you think Strictly Come Dancing is worth £11 a month, there's no hope.

[Ash]

If you think Strictly Come Dancing is worth £11 a month, there's no hope.

I don't quite know how to put this, but you do know that, on the four television channels, six national radio stations, numerous regional stations, the world service and the multi-faceted website there is plenty of content which isn't Strictly Come Dancing?

I can only assume you only get access to television for one hour a week, for eighteen weeks of the year. Either that or you're being a bit of a bender.

[hypochondriac]

I tend to agree with murdochs. comments about the BBC

 

They are so far up there own arses. They seem to want to make the news. influence our way of life and the way we do things in society. They are so biased and divisive.

 

Look at the way they do sport and particular Alan Green

Look at the way they are harping on about Afghan. never saying anything positive. They kept on with a constant neatve campaigna about our involvement in Iraq.

 

 

Murdoch Jnr is correct in what he says and I hope he succeeds in tackling the BBCs own agenda.

 

What are you on about? How can you read any newspaper and then argue that the BBC is biased. Of course it is to a degree but it is the least biased media source we have. The BBC is a world leader and something to be treasured (you only have to go to America and listen to their news to see what an asset it is.)

[hypochondriac]

If you think Strictly Come Dancing is worth £11 a month, there's no hope.

 

The BBC's mission is to cater for the people of Britain. Strictly Come Dancing isn't for me but it is clearly very popular with certain types of people. By being as diverse as possible, the BBC will not appeal to you all the time.

Edited 29 August, 2009 by hypochondriac

[Saintandy666]

If you think Strictly Come Dancing is worth £11 a month, there's no hope.

 

The BBC produce a wide range of diverse programmes and not just ones that appeal to millions of people like the one you mention. They are obliged to make decent thought provoking television that Sky would never make because the profit just isn't there.

 

While I am not a fan of Strictly Come Dancing, it's clear it appeals to many people and therefore worth the BBC producing it. The Beeb is one of the best things about this country, please don't help destroy it. The only channels I watch are BBC ones, and sometimes Channel 4 which is another Public Service broadcaster! I watch commercial channels like ITV a few times a year and that is it. Oh yea, and what Ash said.

[hypochondriac]

The BBC produce a wide range of diverse programmes and not just ones that appeal to millions of people like the one you mention. They are obliged to make decent thought provoking television that Sky would never make because the profit just isn't there.

 

While I am not a fan of Strictly Come Dancing, it's clear it appeals to many people and therefore worth the BBC producing it. The Beeb is one of the best things about this country, please don't help destroy it. The only channels I watch are BBC ones, and sometimes Channel 4 which is another Public Service broadcaster! I watch commercial channels like ITV a few times a year and that is it. Oh yea, and what Ash said.

 

One example is Walking With Dinosaurs from a few years back. Cost loads to make but by all accounts was a phenomonal success. It wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the BBC. There are numerous other examples.

[BadgerBadger]

The BBC also has a very succefull commercial arm to the corporation makiing stacks in selling the content and ploughing it back into business for the greater good, not going to line shareholder pockets

 

The BBC is a marvellous set up that is the envy of the world

[revolution saint]

I tend to agree with murdochs. comments about the BBC

 

They are so far up there own arses. They seem to want to make the news. influence our way of life and the way we do things in society. They are so biased and divisive.

 

Look at the way they do sport and particular Alan Green

Look at the way they are harping on about Afghan. never saying anything positive. They kept on with a constant neatve campaigna about our involvement in Iraq.

 

 

Murdoch Jnr is correct in what he says and I hope he succeeds in tackling the BBCs own agenda.

 

Have you seen Fox News? Have you read the Sun? Bias? BBC doesn't even come close.

[sotonjoe]

The BBC produce a wide range of diverse programmes and not just ones that appeal to millions of people like the one you mention. They are obliged to make decent thought provoking television that Sky would never make because the profit just isn't there.

 

While I am not a fan of Strictly Come Dancing, it's clear it appeals to many people and therefore worth the BBC producing it. The Beeb is one of the best things about this country, please don't help destroy it. The only channels I watch are BBC ones, and sometimes Channel 4 which is another Public Service broadcaster! I watch commercial channels like ITV a few times a year and that is it. Oh yea, and what Ash said.

 

 

If you're happy to pay for a television show that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but you have no interest in, then there's no hope.

 

Why have a system that has a combination of licence fee and subscription only services; surely it should be one or the other?

 

I'd be interested to see a list of high quality bbc programming, I know "**** Off, I'm Fat" is pretty edgy, but I'm not sure why I'm obliged to pay for it.

[sotonjoe]

Have you seen Fox News? Have you read the Sun? Bias? BBC doesn't even come close.

 

If you've watched the BBC News channel for any length of time, you should be disgusted at the amount of time they spend plugging their own crappy entertainment shows.

[Saintandy666]

If you're happy to pay for a television show that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but you have no interest in, then there's no hope.

 

Why have a system that has a combination of licence fee and subscription only services; surely it should be one or the other?

 

I'd be interested to see a list of high quality bbc programming, I know "**** Off, I'm Fat" is pretty edgy, but I'm not sure why I'm obliged to pay for it.

 

Different programmes appeal to different people, and the BBC produces alot of stuff which I like, ITV minus a couple of programmes produces nothing I like. ITV is ****.

[revolution saint]

If you've watched the BBC News channel for any length of time, you should be disgusted at the amount of time they spend plugging their own crappy entertainment shows.

 

They also plug other crappy entertainment shows on other channels such as Big Brother. They do that because for some reason people are interested in it. Off the top of my head I can remember Justin Lee Collins and Noel Edmonds both plugging shows on SKY on The One show (and I don't watch it that much). I'm not disgusted by the BBC at all but that's not the point - Murdoch Jnr was moaning because he felt that the BBC offering "free" content on the internet was harming the chances of independant companies making money from online content. It's a fair point but given the alternative it seems most of us are more than happy with the BBC.

[jeff leopard]

I've not had a tv for a couple of years and i've found out a few things -

 

a) not having a tv is bliss! i got used to not having one within a week or so, removing myself from the utterly pointless and offensively bland tabloid tv is one of the best things i've done.

 

b) the iplayer is changing the way we watch television, and the term 'relevision' is going to become increasingly redundant as more people use their pc's.

 

c) like the NHS, the BBC is an institution with a lot of problems, but like the NHS, the BBC is as vital today as its ever been. the tories are going to go after the bbc the moment they get in power, just one reason we can't vote the ****z in. BBC1 and 3 are both already ruined by the competition with sky, 2 and 4 are still useful. But if you phuck with the BBC the biggest and most destructive effects will be on its radio and internet news, both of which are absolutely world-class. when they're gone, this country's media output will be consumed by the awful bland sludge of itv and sky.

 

d) to get good tv these days, its all about US boxsets - Deadwood, Battlestar Galactica, The Wire, Ad Men, Flight of the Conchords etc. they really are miles ahead of us.

 

And yeah, Murdoch is all for the free market economy, thank god he's not some power-hungry media dictator who wants everything for himself.

[sotonjoe]

They also plug other crappy entertainment shows on other channels such as Big Brother. They do that because for some reason people are interested in it. Off the top of my head I can remember Justin Lee Collins and Noel Edmonds both plugging shows on SKY on The One show (and I don't watch it that much). I'm not disgusted by the BBC at all but that's not the point - Murdoch Jnr was moaning because he felt that the BBC offering "free" content on the internet was harming the chances of independant companies making money from online content. It's a fair point but given the alternative it seems most of us are more than happy with the BBC.

 

 

The BBC should not be using a 'news' channel to advertise their Saturday night shows. End of. I think the sweeping generalisation that "people want them to" is a bit naff to be honest.

[sotonjoe]

Different programmes appeal to different people, and the BBC produces alot of stuff which I like, ITV minus a couple of programmes produces nothing I like. ITV is ****.

 

It's not about whether we like some of the programmes on the BBC; more that we shouldn't be forced into paying for the tat they make that we have no interest in.

[Wilko]

Murdoch has a point. The BBC website is so dominant in the market that almost every other form of media suffers. It's website covers all the national stories as they happen, leaving the following day's national papers almost redundant. You might not see the problem with that, but you'll miss them when they're gone.

 

This country also used to have a successful local media, which held the local authorities to account and covered news at the local level. However, the BBC website pretty much covers all the big stories now, as well as many of the smaller, local stories. It stifles the whole system.

 

However, for somebody at the top of News Corporation to talk about independence is beyond hypocrisy.

 

My advice: go out and buy your local paper every day to ensure the survival of democracy.

[hypochondriac]

It's not about whether we like some of the programmes on the BBC; more that we shouldn't be forced into paying for the tat they make that we have no interest in.

 

What about the people who dislike the things you enjoy on the bbc? Should they be allowed to opt out of paying for them even if it means that there is not enough money for them?

[St Landrew]

I've not had a tv for a couple of years and i've found out a few things -

 

a) not having a tv is bliss! i got used to not having one within a week or so, removing myself from the utterly pointless and offensively bland tabloid tv is one of the best things i've done.

 

b) the iplayer is changing the way we watch television, and the term 'relevision' is going to become increasingly redundant as more people use their pc's.

 

c) like the NHS, the BBC is an institution with a lot of problems, but like the NHS, the BBC is as vital today as its ever been. the tories are going to go after the bbc the moment they get in power, just one reason we can't vote the ****z in. BBC1 and 3 are both already ruined by the competition with sky, 2 and 4 are still useful. But if you phuck with the BBC the biggest and most destructive effects will be on its radio and internet news, both of which are absolutely world-class. when they're gone, this country's media output will be consumed by the awful bland sludge of itv and sky.

 

d) to get good tv these days, its all about US boxsets - Deadwood, Battlestar Galactica, The Wire, Ad Men, Flight of the Conchords etc. they really are miles ahead of us.

 

And yeah, Murdoch is all for the free market economy, thank god he's not some power-hungry media dictator who wants everything for himself.

 

 

Jeff, I was right with you upto the point of the US boxsets. Almost without exception, I find US popular culture programmes to grate against my culture. I'm not interested in the UK being an offshore US island, as is presently happening, and the more locally produced programme material that reflects UK culture, the better. Of course, exceptions can be made in certain genre like Sci-Fi, etc... although incidentally, there is a definite distinction between UK and US Sci-Fi too.

 

My old Dad used to have a phrase for it... Yankie bullsh!t. I didn't know what he meant, as a kid, but I learned.

 

EDIT: Back in the early 90s, I also went for a few years without a TV. It didn't hurt me either, and when my old Phillips widescreen finally gives up the ghost, I'll probably not replace it. We'll see.

[sotonjoe]

What about the people who dislike the things you enjoy on the bbc? Should they be allowed to opt out of paying for them even if it means that there is not enough money for them?

 

I'm not suggesting we opt out for specific programmes; you've misunderstood me. I believe the BBC should be commercially funded as all other broadcasters. That way we could all choose which broadcasters we subscribe to.

 

Picking out good BBC programmes versus bad ones from ITV or any other broadcaster only confirms that the BBC have the luxury of significantly greater funding than other broadcasters. An even playing field would result in broadcasting that is of a more consistently high standard due to the competition amongst broadcasters.

[Saintandy666]

I'm not suggesting we opt out for specific programmes; you've misunderstood me. I believe the BBC should be commercially funded as all other broadcasters. That way we could all choose which broadcasters we subscribe to.

 

Picking out good BBC programmes versus bad ones from ITV or any other broadcaster only confirms that the BBC have the luxury of significantly greater funding than other broadcasters. An even playing field would result in broadcasting that is of a more consistently high standard due to the competition amongst broadcasters.

 

Adverts on the BBC would be so ****, it's one of the best things about the BBC, no stupid annoying adverts.

[St Landrew]

Adverts on the BBC would be so ****, it's one of the best things about the BBC, no stupid annoying adverts.

 

And besides, it is the very fact that the BBC has no direct sponsors pulling the strings that gives it the very power to be the great public broadcaster that it is. Incidentally, in my opinion, only very recently has the BBC come out of the doldrums and started to be public broadcaster it should be again. For years it chased ITV with ratings, but that is over for the present, as ITV have competely lost ground, in terms of quality of output and appeal, which granted was never that high anyway. The proliferation of digital channels has certainly not helped quality of output overall, but the Beeb certainly seem to be coping better with it than most other broadcasters.

 

As long as they keep Radio 4, I'll probably be happy enough anyway.

[revolution saint]

The BBC should not be using a 'news' channel to advertise their Saturday night shows. End of. I think the sweeping generalisation that "people want them to" is a bit naff to be honest.

 

If you're talking about the little "adverts" between segments then yes I agree - it is like advertising. If you're talking about the "news" content such as when John Sargant quit Strictly Come Dancing last year then they can justify it by the fact that so many people are interested in it. Personally I don't but then I don't get to make the rules and obviously a lot of people do find it worthy of being in the news.

 

Interesting you should say that you don't feel you should pay for the tat you don't care about - if you just subscribed to content you were interested in then you'd find that you'd have less choice and less "quality" TV. Look at SKY, look at ITV how much genuine quality documentaries do they produce? Not many.

[hypochondriac]

I'm not suggesting we opt out for specific programmes; you've misunderstood me. I believe the BBC should be commercially funded as all other broadcasters. That way we could all choose which broadcasters we subscribe to.

 

Picking out good BBC programmes versus bad ones from ITV or any other broadcaster only confirms that the BBC have the luxury of significantly greater funding than other broadcasters. An even playing field would result in broadcasting that is of a more consistently high standard due to the competition amongst broadcasters.

 

But as I already said, the nature of the funding means that the bbc can make programmes that would otherwise not be made. I used walking with dinosaurs as just one example

[sotonjoe]

But as I already said, the nature of the funding means that the bbc can make programmes that would otherwise not be made. I used walking with dinosaurs as just one example

 

 

Yes, and as I said, if the funds were split more evenly, then other broadcasters would have the chance to raise their game.

 

Walking with Dinosaurs was a huge waste of money in my opinion; another waste of my licence fee. It's the kind of white elephant programming that shows the BBC has huge sums of money to splurge unnecessarily.

 

I think people have to acknowledge, that the fact other broadcasters make low budget programmes which appeal to the lowest common denominator is because their comparatively poor funding in comparison to the BBC dictates that they must. The fact that the BBC makes some programmes says nothing about it's quality as a broadcaster, it just says that it gets a lot more money to play with.

[sotonjoe]

Adverts on the BBC would be so ****, it's one of the best things about the BBC, no stupid annoying adverts.

 

 

If you'd watched the BBC for any length of time, you'd know that the 'no adverts' thing is a myth. They advertise their own shows repeatedly which is just as annoying as having to watch Cillit Bang commercials.

 

As I'm sure I've also said, they also cheekily use their own 'news' channel to plug their own 'headline' shows time and time again. They are always going on about The Apprentice or Strictly blah blah.

 

This kind of 'covert' advertising annoys me more than out and out advertising anyway.

[Saintandy666]

If you'd watched the BBC for any length of time, you'd know that the 'no adverts' thing is a myth. They advertise their own shows repeatedly which is just as annoying as having to watch Cillit Bang commercials.

 

As I'm sure I've also said, they also cheekily use their own 'news' channel to plug their own 'headline' shows time and time again. They are always going on about The Apprentice or Strictly blah blah.

 

This kind of 'covert' advertising annoys me more than out and out advertising anyway.

 

Sigh... you just don't get it. Adverts = Commercials that actually INTERUPT the programme usually on commerical channels for 3 or 4 minutes at a time, on the BBC you get 2 or 3 adverts after the programme not for colgate or currys but for BBC programmes.

[hypochondriac]

Yes, and as I said, if the funds were split more evenly, then other broadcasters would have the chance to raise their game.

 

Walking with Dinosaurs was a huge waste of money in my opinion; another waste of my licence fee. It's the kind of white elephant programming that shows the BBC has huge sums of money to splurge unnecessarily.

 

I think people have to acknowledge, that the fact other broadcasters make low budget programmes which appeal to the lowest common denominator is because their comparatively poor funding in comparison to the BBC dictates that they must. The fact that the BBC makes some programmes says nothing about it's quality as a broadcaster, it just says that it gets a lot more money to play with.

 

You do realise that walking with dinosaurs has actually generated more revenue for the BBC than it cost to make? Other broadcasters make the cheapest programmes available because they guarantee high audience share for the least risk. The advertisers dictate this strategy. If the BBC turned into this model then there would be no one willing to take a risk on programming. It would be a terrible loss and I find it difficult to understand how anyone can argue otherwise.

[sotonjoe]

Sigh... you just don't get it. Adverts = Commercials that actually INTERUPT the programme usually on commerical channels for 3 or 4 minutes at a time, on the BBC you get 2 or 3 adverts after the programme not for colgate or currys but for BBC programmes.

 

 

Don't be naive. I know what a commercial is, my point was that the BBC is not devoid of advertising as many people say.

 

The fact that commercials interrupt programmes is only one of the reasons why people say advertising is annoying and, to be fair, I quite like a kettle / toilet break so I can't see what the harm is in that respect.

 

The fact that the BBC trail there own shows between shows and, more importantly, employs covert advertising tactics on their news channel and also on their website, means they are not nearly as advertising free as people make out.

[sotonjoe]

You do realise that walking with dinosaurs has actually generated more revenue for the BBC than it cost to make? Other broadcasters make the cheapest programmes available because they guarantee high audience share for the least risk. The advertisers dictate this strategy. If the BBC turned into this model then there would be no one willing to take a risk on programming. It would be a terrible loss and I find it difficult to understand how anyone can argue otherwise.

 

I'm not aware of the exact profits that Walking with Dinosaurs made the BBC no, but when the BBC aren't currently supposed to be a commercial enterprise, and you're supposedly in favour of it remaining so, I'm not sure why the profitability of a particular show is relevant to your case.

 

Whether the show was popular with other or not is irrelevant as my argument is based upon the fact the British public are still effectively paying another tax to support a national broadcaster without choice. The system remains archaic and outdated, especially when many of us are now already taking out additional subscription based services.

 

I'm not sure what evidence you can cite in favour of your implication that the BBC uses a high risk strategy in comparison to other broadcasters when it comes to its programming. It sounds like something of a generalisation to me. If you had a list of innovative, ground breaking shows that the BBC make then perhaps you'd have a case, but the fact is that the BBC have dumbed down in recent years as much as any other broadcaster and now produly boast show titles such as "**** off I'm fat!" etc.

 

I'd be interested to hear what BBC shows you watch on a regular basis, obviously you watch a lot of them and that's why you feel it's good value for money. I find little to watch, hence why I object to paying yet another tax for the service.

[Saintandy666]

Don't be naive. I know what a commercial is, my point was that the BBC is not devoid of advertising as many people say.

 

The fact that commercials interrupt programmes is only one of the reasons why people say advertising is annoying and, to be fair, I quite like a kettle / toilet break so I can't see what the harm is in that respect.

 

The fact that the BBC trail there own shows between shows and, more importantly, employs covert advertising tactics on their news channel and also on their website, means they are not nearly as advertising free as people make out.

 

I'm not even going to reply to this, my original point was about commercial advertising. The BBC is free of that, I do not want programmes interupted for 4 minutes every 15 minutes or every 5 minutes in the states.

[View From The Top]

I would have thought that ITV produced enough shows like Jeremy Kyle to keep Sotonjoe happy.

 

The BBC is, withput doubt, the best broadcaster on the planet, but as Joe has a low forehead this fact passes him by.

 

Murdock can continue to blow smoke up his arse as his empire loses billions.

 

Lovely.

[BadgerBadger]

Yes, and as I said, if the funds were split more evenly, then other broadcasters would have the chance to raise their game.

 

Walking with Dinosaurs was a huge waste of money in my opinion; another waste of my licence fee. It's the kind of white elephant programming that shows the BBC has huge sums of money to splurge unnecessarily.

 

I think people have to acknowledge, that the fact other broadcasters make low budget programmes which appeal to the lowest common denominator is because their comparatively poor funding in comparison to the BBC dictates that they must. The fact that the BBC makes some programmes says nothing about it's quality as a broadcaster, it just says that it gets a lot more money to play with.

 

Most BBC programs are sold world wide generating income that in most cases pays for the program and some allowing for that extra dosh to be put back into making more programs.

[BadgerBadger]

I would have thought that ITV produced enough shows like Jeremy Kyle to keep Sotonjoe happy.

 

The BBC is, withput doubt, the best broadcaster on the planet, but as Joe has a low forehead this fact passes him by.

 

Murdock can continue to blow smoke up his arse as his empire loses billions.

 

Lovely.

 

Too true, market foces baby, roll with it or wither.

 

bit like the music industry, due to file sharing the parties over and they need to re evaluate the 'cash cow' and evolve

[Saintandy666]

They can moan about the BBC all they like, but theres a reason it is preferred, it is better, and don't give me bull**** how Sky doesn't have the money to compete with the BBC! It just doesn't have the repsonsibilities of the BBC to produce top output. Also, I think the BBC's reputation means the top TV workers and producers etc etc etc would rather work for the BBC than Sky.

[LVSaint]

Jeff, I was right with you upto the point of the US boxsets. Almost without exception, I find US popular culture programmes to grate against my culture. I'm not interested in the UK being an offshore US island, as is presently happening, and the more locally produced programme material that reflects UK culture, the better. Of course, exceptions can be made in certain genre like Sci-Fi, etc... although incidentally, there is a definite distinction between UK and US Sci-Fi too.

 

My old Dad used to have a phrase for it... Yankie bullsh!t. I didn't know what he meant, as a kid, but I learned.

 

 

I thought this way of US TV through the 80s and 90s but there really has been an injection of quality in output over here within the last decade most notably from Showtime and HBO but plenty from terrestrial commercial channels too.

 

However, nothing can compare to the BBC in terms of channel identity and the general broad based appeal it offers and garners respect for. Whilst I agree it has suffered ('dumbing down' in some areas) it remains one of the many things I miss from home and would hate to see it go, even having a much limited access to it from here.