Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

BBC to axe a TV Channel?


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#41 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,751 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:41 AM

It's a start then...one small step for common sense, one giant step still needed from the BBC.....



#42 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,751 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:42 AM

Okay, they share the same multiplex slot on each of the UK broadcast regions.

 

  That's better...it rolls off the tongue so much easier  more easily!  :tongue:


Edited by JohnM, 06 March 2014 - 09:43 AM.


#43 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,406 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:45 PM

I have a brilliant idea that will save this channel. Why not claw back the £100 million wasted on the failed  DMI project from those responsible?

 

Actually, the whole thing sounds like sabre-rattling ..there must be some sort of licence review coming up.

 

Still , thing are looking  up at BBC News And Current Affairs. Susannah Reid is leaving to join ITV!!!

Why not get the government to reinstate the Foreign Office paying for the World Service as has always been the case, that is until Mr Murdoch got involved. Murdoch is getting his way.  What a surprise Dave is doing Rupe a favour.  No doubt it'll be returned in spades when the election's called.


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#44 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,751 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 07:59 AM

Strange, that.For as we all now know, its your role model moneybags Blair who is the one who is closest to the  Murdochs.

 

“Whatever why I’m so so missing Tony. Because he is so so charming and his clothes are so good. He has such good body and he has really really good legs Butt . . . And he is slim tall and good skin. Pierce blue eyes which I love. Love his eyes. Also I love his power on the stage . . . and what else and what else and what else . . . ”

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2014/03/wendi-deng-note-tony-blair


Edited by JohnM, 07 March 2014 - 08:45 AM.


#45 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 6,156 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 09:19 AM

<snip>

 

Hmm, is there any basis of truth to that, or is it just a bit of (potential) libellous trolling by VF (and because you have repeated it here, you and TRL)? :rolleyes:


Edited by Griff9of13, 07 March 2014 - 09:19 AM.

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#46 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 09:28 AM

Hmm, is there any basis of truth to that, or is it just a bit of (potential) libellous trolling by VF (and because you have repeated it here, you and TRL)? :rolleyes:

It's widely reported that Tony Blair was a factor in the Murdochs' divorce. Wendi seemed to have a "thing" about him. No-one has reported it as having been an "affair" but there was something going on even if it was just in the one direction.



#47 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,751 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 09:52 AM

Hmm, is there any basis of truth to that, or is it just a bit of (potential) libellous trolling by VF (and because you have repeated it here, you and TRL)? :rolleyes:

 

It is potentially libellous of you to suggest that my post is potentially libellous. see http://www.theguardi...-deng-tonyblair



#48 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 6,156 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:10 AM

It is potentially libellous of you to suggest that my post is potentially libellous. see http://www.theguardi...-deng-tonyblair

 

:D

 

I had genuinely not seen or heard anything of this story before your post. 


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#49 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 21,891 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:17 AM

Yes, Murdoch cosied up to the Blair régime, but very suddenly changed tack to support the Conservatives as soon as it became apparent exactly how doomed Gordon Brown was. And the latter were always more likely to attack the BBC anyway.

 

Only time will tell if this BBC3 decision is just the thin end of the wedge.


A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#50 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 3,053 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:25 AM

The problem I have with this decision is that BBC2/4 serve a very similar, if not identical, audience. What makes it worse is that BBC2 spends a lot of time airing repeats and also news programmes that are also shown on other BBC channels. BBC3, by contrast, serves a distinct audience not catered for elsewhere by the BBC.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#51 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:32 AM

The problem I have with this decision is that BBC2/4 serve a very similar, if not identical, audience. What makes it worse is that BBC2 spends a lot of time airing repeats and also news programmes that are also shown on other BBC channels. BBC3, by contrast, serves a distinct audience not catered for elsewhere by the BBC.

No, but "yoof TV" is hardly underrepresented on the commercial channels. If there is a point to the BBC then it is to offer things that ITV, Channel 4 and Sky don't cover.



#52 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,751 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:37 AM

:D

 

I had genuinely not seen or heard anything of this story before your post. 

 

That's possibly because you have better things to do!  :)

 

(actually, its all a bit nauseating)


Edited by JohnM, 07 March 2014 - 10:38 AM.


#53 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:57 AM

No, but "yoof TV" is hardly underrepresented on the commercial channels. If there is a point to the BBC then it is to offer things that ITV, Channel 4 and Sky don't cover.

 

The BBC needs to cover the full spectrum, pretty much.

 

If it just did BBC3 type stuff, then you'd claim that is was elitist and unpopular so the licence fee shouldn't be mandatory.


That's me.  I'm done.


#54 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 11:39 AM

The BBC needs to cover the full spectrum, pretty much.

 

If it just did BBC3 type stuff, then you'd claim that is was elitist and unpopular so the licence fee shouldn't be mandatory.

I would?

 

I'm not sure BBC3 could be called "elitist". As far as I can see it is neither catering to a particular underrepresented niche nor very popular. What exactly is the point of it?

 

I'm not even sure that it could claim to be the BBC's only or even most popular "yoof TV".


Edited by Northern Sol, 07 March 2014 - 11:41 AM.


#55 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 3,053 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 11:42 AM

No, but "yoof TV" is hardly underrepresented on the commercial channels. If there is a point to the BBC then it is to offer things that ITV, Channel 4 and Sky don't cover.

But then why allow BBC2/4 replicate one another? 

 

BBC3 isn't exactly "yoof tv" in the sense of many cable/satellite channels that are available. But in comparison to commercial channels, I cannot think of one show on ITV that I watch. Channel 4, yes, there's a few. Sky I don't have but when I did it was simply for sport and Sky Atlantic. BBC3 has some good shows, even if the titles sometimes sound like they were designed to upset the Daily Mail.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#56 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:02 PM

But then why allow BBC2/4 replicate one another? 

 

I don't think they do. BBC4 shows a lot of programmes that weren't being made before digital TV. BBC2 shows repeats and stuff that isn't quite popular enough to be put on BBC1.



#57 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 3,053 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:17 PM

I don't think they do. BBC4 shows a lot of programmes that weren't being made before digital TV. BBC2 shows repeats and stuff that isn't quite popular enough to be put on BBC1.

Lots of documentaries, etc on both channels. If not replicate then they at least cater to the same audience.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#58 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:19 PM

Lots of documentaries, etc on both channels. If not replicate then they at least cater to the same audience.

The audience is defined by the topic of the documentary. BBC4 covers music in a way that no other BBC channel does.



#59 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,463 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:20 PM

BBC4 shows a lot of programmes that weren't being made before digital TV. 

 

Storyville used to be on BBC2.  Michael Wood walking around somewhere talking about something old used to be on BBC 2.  Art documentaries, BBC 2.  Opera, BBC 2.  Old Grey Whistle Test and associated programming, BBC 2. Lightweight, airy takes on specific subjects, BBCs 1 & 2.  Arena, BBC 2.  And so on ...


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#60 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,463 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 01:21 PM

BBC4 covers music in a way that no other BBC channel does.

 

And yet it's still less than the BBC used to show.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users