Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja
Thats the opposite of what i belive, i belive the four nations in the UK should be treated seperately and not as a family, which according to your arguement above seems to be what you believe as well. Thanks for coming over to my side of the fence mate!  |
Considering you ended your post by accusing me of putting words in your mouth, this is a very odd way for you to start off.
I am in no doubt about your separatist views but I promise you I don't share them. I used to have long and very interesting discussions about this with my grandfather-in-law, who was an ardent SNP voter.
The thing is, you are looking for the BBC to treat its world cup coverage according to the way you
want the British Isles to be, rather than the way it
is. Right now, we have four home nations which comprise one single nation state. Our TV, therefore, needs to strike the same balance. In a tournament in which England is the only home nation playing, I think they have it about right.
Quote:
|
Your comment about me believeing its not being good enough that England is the only team represented is not worth commenting on - thats rubbish.
|
Quote:
|
I dont watch British TV, i watch BBC Scotland or STV, we have localised newspapers which more closely represent the views and opinions of the people of this area, so why arent BBC Scotland or BBC Wales etc able to broadcast their own version of a World Cup show? We do after all pay the same TV licence, why should i be forced to hear about England every 5 minutes when i watch an Brazil vs Australia game.
|
Your impression of how TV works in this country is so muddled I don't know where to begin.
BBC Scotland is a regional TV service in exactly the same way as BBC North (based in Manchester) BBC West Midlands (Birmingham) and BBC London (obvious). The clue is in the name: BBC. B for British. Each regional operation is compelled to carry certain national programming and is allowed to diverge from the schedule to show programmes of more local interest where appropriate. BBC operations in Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast get more autonomy in recognition that they are providing for more than just a region like northwest England or the Midlands, but the principle that they are subsidiary operations is unchanged.
You pay the same TV licence as someone in England, yes. And all that money goes to London, where a budget is set and the varying offices all get a cut. BBC Scotland in Glasgow is funded out a single, national, British budget. You don't get Scottish coverage of the world cup because it is not the remit of BBC Scotland (or any other BBC Region) to provide coverage of international events (or even national, i.e. British ones).
As for 'STV' ... well doesn't this kind of give you a clue that most people don't feel the same way you do? Although it is part of the ITV network, STV is an independent company. Yet even its bosses at home in Scotland would rather broadcast the networked British ITV feed than produce their own. Why do you think this is?
You mentioned newspapers. Fine, Aberdeen has the P&J, Edinburgh has the Scotsman, Glasgow has the Herald. But then Liverpool and North Wales has the Daily Post, Newcastle and the North has the Journal. Big deal. Regional morning papers which combine regional and national news.
Incidentally, for the benefit of anyone who thinks you are the definitive voice of Scotland on this issue, my missus (who is Scottish) is reading this over my shoulder and asking why anyone would think Scotland should get separate coverage.
Quote:
|
(Did you know Micheal Owen wasnt the only Newcastle player at the world cup this year, apparently one of the aussies is too. But Micheal Owen had just arrived back home apparently according to ITV so they thought they would use that as a nice link, well, eh, thanks for that but who cares isnt the fact he plays for Newcastle enough info? Do we care if Micheal Owen has just arrived home? Im watching Brazil v Australia.)
|
You were watching Brazil v Australia as presented by a British TV operation for a British TV audience, the majority of whom would be interested to know about Michael Owen. No big deal.
Quote:
|
Who said that? I didnt, so stop putting words in my mouth please.
|
Hello pot, this is kettle calling ...
Quote:
|
I only asked that the BBC, if they arent going to put on regionalised shows at least remember that they are supposed to represent the "UK" and arent just broadcasting to England. I dont expect them to discuss Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at all, i do though expect them to shut up about England when im watching a match that has absolutlely nothing to do with them IF they are not going to put on a regionalised show.
|
They are not going to regionalise the coverage for the reasons I've outlined above. And they are going to continue discussing England during non-England games because this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when most of the audience is interested in what they have to say.
I just can't get my head round your mind-set on this. I was not remotely offended by the comment made during coverage that Celtic (and possibly even Rangers) fans would be cheering when yer man Henrik claimed Sweden's second goal against us the other night. That was a commentary link back to Scotland, who were not playing ... yet I don't have any need to want them to shut up about Scotland.