BBC cuts may mean the test card returns

I'm not going to check news readers' salaries. If you're offering them as evidence to back your views, then that's your job.

As for the rest of it, it's all rather subjective isn't it. I watched Attenborough's latest on BBC1 last night. There was nothing remotely poor about it.

Bbc in terms of quality is imo no better or worse then many other channels all of them have their gems and their turds always have always will. Chrysalis does have a point on the documentary side of it though in recent years there appears to be a definate agenda going on. I have lost count of how many welfare programs i have seen on the bbc that take a tiny minority of people and represent them as the norm and it is annoying as hell and only helps to enforce this belief that welfare in the UK is being taken for a ride constantly.

As for salaries of top people yes they may be high but there is more then a grain of truth to the "you have to pay for the best" and the people moaning about the salaries of some of the top presenters would also soon be quick to moan about the bbc paying the cost of training many top people who then left if the bbc didn't have competitive salary to keep them they cannot win on that one.

We are all going to have to make savings in our expenditure in the coming years cutting back on things we would rather not thats just how it is now and the bbc should not be immune frrom that.

[Alan Fry]

the bbc is being killed by this government for the sake of sky/newscorp and other media giants

the bbc should deside its lisence fee, not the government

this lisence fee process is like communisum

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not going to check news readers' salaries. If you're offering them as evidence to back your views, then that's your job.

As for the rest of it, it's all rather subjective isn't it. I watched Attenborough's latest on BBC1 last night. There was nothing remotely poor about it.

Not interested in that programme.

See people like me pay for the bbc, so people like you who like the channel get it subsidised.

As make no mistake if the bbc was voluntary subscription I wouldnt sign up.

The fact is most of the programmes on the bbc, in fact the vast majority dont interest me.

Regarding the salaries thats up to you, obviously it suits your argument to conveniantly not bother to check it out. There was also a recent news article about alen hansen getting paid 40k an episode of match of the day.

---------- Post added at 09:06 ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Bbc in terms of quality is imo no better or worse then many other channels all of them have their gems and their turds always have always will. Chrysalis does have a point on the documentary side of it though in recent years there appears to be a definate agenda going on. I have lost count of how many welfare programs i have seen on the bbc that take a tiny minority of people and represent them as the norm and it is annoying as hell and only helps to enforce this belief that welfare in the UK is being taken for a ride constantly.

As for salaries of top people yes they may be high but there is more then a grain of truth to the "you have to pay for the best" and the people moaning about the salaries of some of the top presenters would also soon be quick to moan about the bbc paying the cost of training many top people who then left if the bbc didn't have competitive salary to keep them they cannot win on that one.

We are all going to have to make savings in our expenditure in the coming years cutting back on things we would rather not thats just how it is now and the bbc should not be immune frrom that.

There is nothing to say those people really are the best tho, anyone can get better with experience and training, on countdown they sacked both presenters for refusing to take a paycut and the new ones are better than the old ones, so at least channel4 have the balls to do it, and yes I am saying its no better than other channels so I am basically agreeing with you on that. Out of the terrestrial channels, channel 4 is probably my favourite although still not great. Out of all channels ironically is probably sky one and sky atlantic due to american shows.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Not interested in that programme.

And I'm not interested in F1. However, I don't happen to believe that the BBC should make 100% of programmes to suit my taste just because I pay a licence fee. Besides, my point was to address your claim that the BBC's documentaries are poor quality. Frozen Planet is most definitely of extremely high quality, whether you are personally interested in it or not.

See people like me pay for the bbc, so people like you who like the channel get it subsidised.

As make no mistake if the bbc was voluntary subscription I wouldnt sign up.

The BBC isn't 'the channel' - it is an organisation that puts out a great many TV and radio channels, plus online content. And I don't believe for one minute that you don't consume any of it.

Many people wouldn't pay a voluntary subscription for the BBC. Big deal. Many people don't pay for Sky or VM - almost half the households in the UK don't pay subscriptions for their TV. There's no surprise in that, it is widely known and understood.

The reasons why the UK retains a licence fee are also widely known and understood and have been gone over a great many times on this forum. The fee guarantees the existence of a broadcaster that is free to serve all sections of society, to experiment with new formats and production companies, and to make high-quality material even in times when the economy is poor. In the absence of a fee, the BBC would rely on free-to-air advertising just as ITV does, causing massive market distortion as the same pool of advertising money was spread across the BBC's channels as well as the existing commercial ones.

The fact is most of the programmes on the bbc, in fact the vast majority dont interest me.

But some of them do. And that's the point. I'd be more surprised if someone claimed that everything (or even most things) on BBCs 1-4, plus Parliament, News, CBBC and Cbeebies did interest them.

Regarding the salaries thats up to you, obviously it suits your argument to conveniantly not bother to check it out.

Chrys, at the risk of repeating myself, if you bring 'facts' to an argument it's up to you to back them up, it's not up to me to prove your arguments for you.

There was also a recent news article about alen hansen getting paid 40k an episode of match of the day.

Nice. Linkage? Go on, it's not hard. Try it. You might actually get people to agree with you on something for a change.

[bornsurvivorxx]

In this day and age there should not be a licence fee, BBC should raise money by advertising like nearly every other channel.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by bornsurvivorxx

In this day and age there should not be a licence fee, BBC should raise money by advertising like nearly every other channel.

As it stands we have got a licence fee but who know what will happen 10 to 15 years in the future as by then the present model might be unsustainable in its current form

Originally Posted by bornsurvivorxx

In this day and age there should not be a licence fee, BBC should raise money by advertising like nearly every other channel.

I refer you to Stuart's post on the previous page of this thread.

Originally Posted by Stuart

A recession is not a good time to introduce a massive amount of advertising space to an already oversupplied market. It will lower prices. Even without the recession, this is not a good thing for commercial TV. Do this in the middle of a recession (when companies are already trying to cut advertising budgets, and you can sit back and watch a lot of the commercial channels close..

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by bornsurvivorxx

In this day and age there should not be a licence fee, BBC should raise money by advertising like nearly every other channel.

so you will be seeing the x-factor on the bbc then

---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------

the only solution is for the bbc to control the lisence fee,

it will do what itv did after the passing of the broadcasting act of 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_Act_1990

I'm not sure what you think ITV did, other than change from a number of regional independent broadcasters into one single ITV plc (with the exception of Scotland and Ulster where the ITV regional franchises are still held separately). The make-up of the BBC, both before the Act and since, bears no resemblance at all to ITV.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not sure what you think ITV did, other than change from a number of regional independent broadcasters into one single ITV plc (with the exception of Scotland and Ulster where the ITV regional franchises are still held separately). The make-up of the BBC, both before the Act and since, bears no resemblance at all to ITV.

itv's standard were "dumbed down" after the passing of the 1990 broadcasting act

who want to see the bbc dumbed down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbing_down

Ah, dumbing down - I see what you mean.

Actually I don't think the current round of cuts is likely to lead to dumbing down. The BBC doesn't need to go for the lowest common denominator when commissioning new material because ultimately it is not in a battle for ratings in the same way that ITV is (although ratings do play a part; the audience figures help to justify the relatively large amounts that get spent on flagship drama like Doctor Who).

The essence of the BBC cuts is 'Delivering Quality First'. Despite the obvious Orwellian spin that the title represents, the details of the cuts that have been announced do back up the notion that what they intend to do is a bit less of everything, and a lot less of some things, so that what they continue to produce is as well-funded as it was before.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

Ah, dumbing down - I see what you mean.

Actually I don't think the current round of cuts is likely to lead to dumbing down. The BBC doesn't need to go for the lowest common denominator when commissioning new material because ultimately it is not in a battle for ratings in the same way that ITV is (although ratings do play a part; the audience figures help to justify the relatively large amounts that get spent on flagship drama like Doctor Who).

The essence of the BBC cuts is 'Delivering Quality First'. Despite the obvious Orwellian spin that the title represents, the details of the cuts that have been announced do back up the notion that what they intend to do is a bit less of everything, and a lot less of some things, so that what they continue to produce is as well-funded as it was before.

"Delivering Quality First" BBC

if they really mean that, where is BBC 3 and 3 hd, wehere the extra investment in programmes, why are they selling bbc tv centre, white city and media village, where are the bbc sport channel etc

i find that term a load of rubbish

It's 'Delivering Quality First', not 'Spending More Money First'. They have to try to maintain quality with less money. That means doing less, not doing more.

BBC HD is going to be shut down and replaced with BBC2-HD. BBC3 and BBC4 are going to be run as feeders for 1 and 2 (mostly 2, I think) so successful programming first shown on those channels will eventually get an HD airing on BBC1 or BBC2. Beyond that, they are already shutting down some of the red button streams on satellite so that they can end their leases on those transponders, i.e. spending less, so they are hardly going to start looking to broadcast more channels in HD. Besides, the decision to stay with terrestrial free-to-air broadcasting rather than moving the whole country to FTA satellite means there simply isn't the bandwidth for all the BBC's channels to go over to HD anyway.

The White City complex has been obsolete for some time and has not been fully occupied for years. The BBC needed to move into new facilities elsewhere and has decided to make the most of the opportunity to do business in parts of the UK that don't expect stupid money for postage-stam sized pieces of land. Hence the new buildings at Salford Quays in Greater Manchester.

As for a BBC Sport channel ... that's a really bad idea. Sports rights cost an absolute fortune. ITV tried it and pretty much bankrupted itself (remember ITV Digital, the service that went bust because of the amount it spent buying rights to the football league? It was rescued at the last minute and renamed 'Freeview'). Premium sports events, with the exception of the ones on the national 'crown jewels' list, are on subscription channels these days, and that's where they're going to stay.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's 'Delivering Quality First', not 'Spending More Money First'. They have to try to maintain quality with less money. That means doing less, not doing more.

BBC HD is going to be shut down and replaced with BBC2-HD. BBC3 and BBC4 are going to be run as feeders for 1 and 2 (mostly 2, I think) so successful programming first shown on those channels will eventually get an HD airing on BBC1 or BBC2. Beyond that, they are already shutting down some of the red button streams on satellite so that they can end their leases on those transponders, i.e. spending less, so they are hardly going to start looking to broadcast more channels in HD. Besides, the decision to stay with terrestrial free-to-air broadcasting rather than moving the whole country to FTA satellite means there simply isn't the bandwidth for all the BBC's channels to go over to HD anyway.

The White City complex has been obsolete for some time and has not been fully occupied for years. The BBC needed to move into new facilities elsewhere and has decided to make the most of the opportunity to do business in parts of the UK that don't expect stupid money for postage-stam sized pieces of land. Hence the new buildings at Salford Quays in Greater Manchester.

As for a BBC Sport channel ... that's a really bad idea. Sports rights cost an absolute fortune. ITV tried it and pretty much bankrupted itself (remember ITV Digital, the service that went bust because of the amount it spent buying rights to the football league? It was rescued at the last minute and renamed 'Freeview'). Premium sports events, with the exception of the ones on the national 'crown jewels' list, are on subscription channels these days, and that's where they're going to stay.

what about the future of "russel howards good news", "Family Guy", being human, him and her and all the BBC4 Docs on the bbc

and as for itv, the right they were bidding for were not that valuable and they had limited financial resources compaired to sky

also if the bbc had more stuff to do then, they could rebuild the white city complex and still keep salford quays