 sj |
||
|
||
BBC Poor Value? (UK Interest)
|
|
|
Subject: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? (UK interest) From: DMcG Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:40 AM An independent report for our old friend, the DCMS, has declared that BBC4 is "poor value for money" and needs to broaden its appeal by showing fewer arts programmes that "virtually no-one watches". This is the channel that has done more for folk music broadcasts over the past year or two than the rest of the BBC put together has for years and is, for example, showing a programme on the Copper family this weekend. I realise its IS bad value for all those UK catters who can't get freeview at all, but the rest may feel like commenting. There is, as far as I can see, no way of commenting on the report itself, but you could try posting to the BBC message board or to DCMS (and much good may it do you!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:11 AM Well Dave, I don't have 2 freeview boxes in this household for nothing! Reception can be difficult at times here - in fact freeview changed thier story for my postcode from a maybe to a no way but I can get it most of the time with the use of an areil amp as well as amps for the tv and my pc card. BBC4 was by far the main reason I went onto using freeview and so far have enjoyed thier folk music output that I have managed to catch. I do post over there BTW and have recently expressed the opinion that I would like to see BBC4 remain more specialised rather than being just another channel carrying the same old stuff. I don't see a point in more soaps, comedys, etc. they are 10 a penny. To have a station willing to cater for more minority interests IMO is excellent. That said, I of course hope that thier coverage of folk will encourage others to learn what a wealth of fine music we have in this one area. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: DMcG Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:18 AM Thanks, Jon. For those who don't have the inclination to read through the whole report, one of the recommendations is:
i.e. head in what Jon and I think would be precisely the wrong direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: Dave Hanson Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:03 AM BBC4 is the best anyone has ever done for folk music etc, whereas BBC3 is shite. eric |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:19 AM You know, at the risk of sounding snobby or whatever, in the few months we have had freeview, I have never once bothered to watch anything on BB3. I go along with "shite"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: Paco Rabanne Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:37 AM Long ago and far away, BBC2 was set up to cater for minority interests. This channel has long since dumbed down to the point where I no longer have much interest in it. Then, hosannah! BBC 4 appeared to cater for minorities. If this channel goes the same way as BBC2, what am I paying my licence fee for? Flamenco, the true path el ted Beverley |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:41 AM Maybe then they will introduce BBC8 and BBC9 for minorities.... and restrict them to the next gizmo that will make them money and make us all have to go out and buy yet another set top box. Personally, I'm way overloaded on my sockets - thank heaven for 4 and 6 gang extensions! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:27 AM There is also the completely separate "Channel Four", which was also set up originally with the goal of catering for "minority interest programmes", and that got vandalised as well. It doesn't help that all the listings pages - including the Radio Times - stick Channel Four among the satellite and cable rubbish programmes. I suspect this is intentional, to ensure audiences don't pick up, becuase there are greedy people with their hands stretching out for them. Also, calling it "BBC Four" when there already is a Channel Four and TV channels called E4 and FilmFour, plus a radio channel called Radio Four - well, wasn't that just a teeny bit stupid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:29 AM See, I got them mixed up, showing how easily that is done - it's not Channel Four that gets tucked in among the satellite and cable rubbish, it's BBC4. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: akenaton Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:03 PM I saw Gillian Welch on Sat night on BBC 4,and was blown away... She is what I think folk music is all about.....Emotional ,committed and "crazy" with the music. She had a guitarist accompanying her who was also really good,and the whole set had me on the edge of my seat. (Kate Rusby look and learn). I agree with everyone who says BBC4 is the best thing to happen to folk music for years..Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: GUEST Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:59 PM How much do they save by having it switched off for most of the day? I have far better things to do than watch TV in the evenings. Now a wet Sunday afternoon after a family lunch with my parents is when I would like some decent viewing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: Sarah the flute Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:23 PM BBC4's minority music appeal is the TOTAL reason why we went digital. Also those wonderful foreign films and the old documentaries from the 60s and 70s. I love the Storyville series (did anyone see the one about the Irish travellers who had been given a camera in the 60s and then they revisited them to see what had happened in the years since) and what about "days that shook the world". How can they change it??????? Do we really need more wall to wall X factor when I can see more talent than the whole show together at the local session? BBC3 is notall shite - there's Little Britain and that wonderful 15 stories high....well I think its funny Sarah |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:24 PM How much extra would it cost just to repeat the previous evening's programmes in the afternoon? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:31 PM Re: The afternoon broadcasts. It was suggested on the BBC4 music board recently that they should extend there broadcasting hours. Ellen, the host there mentioned something along the lines of BBC4 sharing some facilities with CBBC. I think the implication at the moment is they can't not broadcast the 2 stations at the same time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:48 PM That sounds likely enough - on my set when BBC4 isn't running we get CBBC (and we also get it in other channels where nothing else is happening). What seems a bit silly is the notion that by putting on the same kind of programmes they have on BBC1 and BBC2 they would get additional viewers. For the most part what they'd achieve would be to move viewers across from BBC1 and BBC2, thus reduce viewing figures for those channels, and driving away the viewers they've currently got for BBC4. Which would mean that, even if the figures for BBC4 went up, there would be an overalll reduction in the number of people watching BBC channels. What would make a lot more sense would be for them to try to build on the people they've got, by making it easier for potential viewers to know what's on and when. And change that confusing name for the channel, which just increases viewing figures for Channel Four. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:03 PM I sympathise with these views, and I understand what you're saying - but in way it sort of misses the point. You can bet your sweet ass none of the musicians are becoming millionaires out of this trickle of work. And yet how much does it cost. Something like say the John Martyn programme, or the Kate Rusby thing.. The BBC's angle is always we're doing you a favour putting your crappy little minority music on TV. Compared to a programme with really massive talents like Richard and Judy or Michael Parkinson meets Des O'Connor, the translantic sessions probably cost sod all. Value for money, its a tricky one to work out.....what criteria are being used I think we must ask ourselves. What I'm saying is, these guys wouldn't recognise what is of value to us lot if it bit them on the bum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:20 PM WLD, I think that heads off towards a reason why I think it is important to let BBC4 know that thier efforts are appreciated and that there are people around who do consider them worthwhile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:33 PM Someone give us a link to where we can make our voices heard. Trying to find my way round those clunky BBC message boards always does my head in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:41 PM here is a link to the BBC4 music board. Best of luck - as you say it is clunky. I'm pretty much used to them now but I don't like them at all - in fact for ease of use, they get the prize for being the least user friendly boards I contribute to by a long way. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BBC4 Poor Value? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:17 PM Presumably though BBC4 know its of some value. How do we communicate with the people who are saying it is of no value. What do we say that they would understand? We need representation at the highest level. A sort of folk ombudsman. |
|
Subject: RE: BBC Poor Value? (UK Interest) From: DMcG Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:49 AM There is also a sort of summarised discussion here.In this 'board' you effectively post just to a moderator and some hours later they decide whether or not it appears in the thread. As to how we get a message to the decision-makers, that's another matter. It could be DCMS who need to be convinced that the remit is right and simple viewing figures cannot be the over-riding criteria; or it could be the BBC board who will be prepared to sacrifice anything to get a good deal at the next licence review ... |
|
Subject: RE: BBC Poor Value? (UK Interest) From: Fee Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:23 AM I agree with everything that's already been said...the main reason I wanted to get the freeview box was so I could watch films in (shock horror!!!) foreign languages, and see/hear a wider range of music, drama etc. If the BBC claims to be a public service broadcaster, funded by what is - effectively - an unavoidable tax (I know people who have no TV and are constantly hassled by the licensing authority), then it damn well SHOULD cater for 'minority' interests. Ooooo...this makes me so annoyed...!!!! Anyway the logic of this should dictate the following: Radio 3 gets a tiny proportion of listeners compared to 1,2 and 4...so, why don't they a) close it down or b)play a bit of Kylie and Robbie Williams every now and again? hmm?. |
| Share Thread: |