Quote:
Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes
I was happier when there were fewer BBC channels, because the bar was higher. It wasn't a case of cramming spare slots with whatever cheap-to-produce reality trash people would sit and get dumber to, it was more like "if the quality isn't reasonably high, it isn't getting aired". The way the BBC is now in terms of TV, I'd be happy with BBC1, BBC2, BBC 1 HD and BBC 2 HD as long as they cut the right corners (i.e. weaker programs) in order to thin the herd and keep the best programming.
|
The defence for retaining the BBC as a publicly funded, non-commercial entity has always been about quality. The problem is that the BBC feel that they have to compete for audiences and, unfortunately, audiences apparently want tat! The News of the World and other media that are the subject of the Levinson Enquiry supplied what there was demand for. If nobody wanted to know who's phoning Hugh Grant late at night and what's in
Alan Partridge's refuse bin then the more serious infringements might not have occurred.
What were the NotW readers reading about and watching on TV when stories such as the DTI brokering deals to sell Super-gun components to Iraq or, more recently, a cabinet minister bringing his 'friend' to MoD meetings with foreign governments and overseas 'suppliers' were being reported? That
is reality TV not Pricey Kate mentoring future captains of industry. The problem is that a large portion of the public need to know what they don't want to know but want to know what they don't need to know.
Maybe the Nanny State should force the population to watch a certain number of hours of quality BBC programming each week!
Even BBC English has suffered on the BBC News channel and prime-time programmes such as Breakfast. The constructs of sentences both on the spoken and ticker versions of the news are terrible and, if you were to take them as they are presented, often mean something very different to what is intended.
If the BBC need to make cuts to stay within the Licence Fee budget it should aim to deliver quality not quantity.
I was going to post a quip the other day about saving money by making all of those expensive natural history series at BBC Bristol instead of 'in the field'. After all, we already know that they fabricate the sound-effect tracks there anyway. They use (Bird's) custard in rubber gloves for birds taking off! Then I saw on Have I got News for You last night that they have been using footage from a wildlife park in The Netherlands to show polar bears being born 'in the wild'. Scandalous!
Apparently it's a bit more Richard Attenborough than David Attenborough these days.
---------- Post added at 10:28 ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilincarnate
From both as I have a 7 month old who loves the channel and the other 2 (8 and 9 year old's loved the channel growing up).
Well the 8 year old still does as he is Autistic and has a learning age of 4, The school that he is at lets all the Autistic kids watch it it as it is a good learning platform for them?
|
Ah yes, the 'smartening up' division of the BBC which, once you've reached adulthood, transfers you into the incapable hands of the 'dumbing down' division.
(John Craven's) Newsround - the first news programme for children in the world and I still find myself watching it before Pointless starts. Happy Birthday NS and Happy Anniversary to John. Quality!
