Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_m
Mainly because they haven't set out what they are!
|
Not in that quote as it's only a newspaper article but they will have done. Hopefully, on my other point, you agree that the £175k report on the BBC was done by its regulator and not the Corporation itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_m
Re. your first point, insignificant or not, I am uncomfortable with an on going subscription channel being allowed a weekly half hour long advert on the national broadcaster and being paid public money for the privilege.
|
I think we would all agree with that statement but that's not what is happening here. It's content and it's not an advert. The fact that it was broadcast earlier on BT Sport obviously doesn't harm BT Sport unless the programme is poor but I doubt it will be seen as a BT Sport advert. Let's see what the finished product looks like, I'm sure the BBC and BT will both be wary of the scrutiny this programme will get from BT's competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_m
Using the licence fee to pay for a full length repeat of a show broadcast the night before on a subscription channel is not the same as the BBC buying in content from private content producing companies.
|
As highlighted previously, it's not a full-length repeat but an edited version, condensed down from 45 minutes. This should ensure any BT Sport references can be edited out.
Finding a pure-play TV production company is quite hard with the likes of channel owners ITV, Sky and Fox busily acquiring the remaining companies.
There is a similar but not identical precedent for the BBC's acquisition of this content. It will show the next series of Ripper Street which premiered on Amazon. I'm sure there are many others. I appreciate that a show from BT wil gather more attention given the rivalry between it and Sky for sports rights.