Lovely moment the other day for connoisseurs of BBC girlie reporters showing why degrees in Media Studies are easy to get....
An erudite and pleasant Professor of (I think) Biomechanics was being interviewed; evidently his team in Bristol have spent 18 months studying Usain Bolt's running action to see if he has a physiological or style advantage over normal humans. Apparently he does, and the Professor explained, very clearly and concisely, why Usain Bolt wins his races. It was to do with his length of stride, the longer time his foot is on the ground than other runners, the sheer power behind the thrust forward and so on.
When he finished, she leaned forward and asked, very earnestly, "And have you found any reason why Usain Bolt wins?".
The Prof looked at her, levelly and without any expression on his face, for a very, very long moment, in total silence. It seemed like a minute, but might have been 5 seconds.
Then he simply said; "Yes, we did," and repeated exactly what he had just said.
You're all absolutely right! The BBC made one programme you didn't like so it must be rubbish.
Terrible value for money too. For forty pence per day I (and everybody else in my household) only get:
Four "ordinary" tv channels Two children's tv channels One TV news channel Nine national radio channels (1, 1x, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5x,6,Asian) Three national radio channels (wales, scotland, ulster) Numerous local radio stations
Not to mention that currently I also get tv coverage of every Olympic sport if I want it and a fabulous news website.
For "nothing" (because the licence "fee" is deducted from profits the Spanish or Catalan electricity provider makes so TV watchers don't experience it) I get 50 digital terrestrial channels of which 10 or 12 (depending on what's on) are in dual-language, which nearly always English.
But quite what the significance is to my original post, I don't know. But it's not just "one program" I didn't like, it's hundreds which (a) treat viewers like idiots and (b) waste licence payer's money.
They got so scared that they were becoming commercial with their magazines that they sold them off. The only thing that they could make a profit in, and they sold it. (BUT ruined the deal for the taxpayer as the BBC held on to the Pension liabilities of the folk they sold with the business).
really, you just could not invent it...
My understanding is that you are somewhat wide of the mark. What actually happened was that they were/are under constant pressure to sell off parts of their business that make a lot of money, and this was just one of those. If you follow the trail, then much of said pressure originates from Murdoch companies - you don't need to be a genius to work out why that may be.
As far as the cost of the Olympics is concerned, I don't know the facts, but I would be very surprised if being host broadcaster didn't bring some financial benefits (ie foreign TV stations paying to be provided with footage) that will offset a proportion of the costs.
Bet the Daily Mail won't report that though. You can tell when they are getting desparate for an anti BBC story - earlier this week they were frothing about the post race interviewer being too touchy-feely when talking to competitors!
Curious Pax - you're right - they were pressured to sell and
OFSO - You've watched literally hundreds of programmes you didn't like? Over what period? A week? A month? Your lifetime?
So what?
There are plenty of BBC programmes I don't like either, but it doesn't necessarily mean that (a) they shouldn't be made or (b) that the BBC is wasting money. The BBC is for everybody in the country. I guarantee that there are many people who would loathe the programmes you like.
I don't doubt that the BBC could be more cost effective than it is (any organisation of its size could definitely run in a leaner fashion) but it's very lazy thinking to extrapolate that because of one (or a hundred...) programmes you disapprove of that the BBC is a useless organisation, only concerned with its own survival.
And on that survival point, I can think of very few organisations who, as a matter of course, decide that the world would be a better place without them and decide to close down (if you'll pardon the rather dated broadcasting pun!).
Last edited by Captivep; 8th Aug 2012 at 15:59.
Reason: spelling
OFSO I am not sure what your complaint boils down to. I imagine that you do not pay a UK licence fee in Spain, and if the output of the BBC is not to your taste, two options are open:
1) Don't watch
2) Watch. but be content that you are not paying for it.
2. Yes, they were heavily pressurised to sell them. Yes, murdoch's lot were poressurising, as were Heseltine's lot. Both used spinners to get their points across. They did not have to sell them. They sold them because they did not try to defend them. At all.
The commercial arm could have gone ahead to reduce our licence fees. The Trots and Pinkoes running the BBC did not like making money.......they much prefer their chauffeured taxpayer lifestyles.
Already stated: (a) dumbing down of scientific, technology and engineering program content (plonky-plong music and irrelevent scenery and themes) and (b) worship of Americans as "they do everything so much better so lets go and make the program there"
In fact there are some excellent undumbed down programs which don't insult the intelligence, but they tend to be American...made by Americans. (Not always, but often). And they are on free TV channels, too.
I also watch German TV now and then and apart from being excruciatingly boring they also don't dumb-down. Oh and German TV is also free outside Germany.
Incidently I do not believe one should expect high quality TV programming for nothing and I do expect to pay for it...when I get it. "Don't Tell the Bride", "Sun, Sex and Suspicion", "Unsightly Bodies", "Gypsy Weddings", anything featuring Brian Cox and repeats of "Dad's Army" does not in my view constitute high quality TV programming. The Proms and Janine Ramirez on Illuminated Manuscripts DO but how often do we get that ?
OFSO - You've watched literally hundreds of programmes you didn't like? Over what period? A week? A month? Your lifetime?
Over 50 years I would put it at thousands of programs I've watched and (GOM syndrome) the proportion I watch which I don't like is getting worse. And, this applies to the BBC more than to any other provider.
Where the BBC lost its sense of direction was when it overlooked its role as a public service. A victim of its time, the BBC's "public" service is and has been for a while derided by those who (and there are many ppruners who adhere) qualify it as leftist, tree-hugging, pinko, Trotskyist and the list goes on...)
"Public" and "service" seem to be anathema to many. I see nothing wrong in being a public service. The BBC has, sadly in my view, adopted the sense of "market", rather than public service, and delivers what it perceives to be sellable. Gone are the days when the BBC would produce excellent programmes for minority interests, because it perceives a need to "compete". Now, that may be the reality of the second decade of the 2000s, but there are many and OFSO seems to be one, who find the result to be disappointing. I do too. So, I do not watch the rubbish they put out to appeal to the "market". I watch what interests me, and am from time to time disappointed by the programme in question, but if it bores me rigid, I press the little red button on the remote control, and go to bed or wander out to cultivate fuschias or whatever.
I firmly believe the rot set in with the appointment of John Birt who, amongst other fundamental changes, encouraged the use of outside production companies while busily dismantling the Beebs own facilities.
Incidentally, as I've already stated, I've given up live TV (and my TV licence) this year. so I've been getting acquainted with iPlayer on occasions. I have to say that, for several reasons, I find it preferable to live TV.
Bit late picking up on this thread, but if you thought the fruity fasting episode was rubbish, did you see the previous Horizon on reducing the effect of skin ageing? Presented, directed, produced, arranged by and starring one Rozeena Ali, it was little more than an hour of gross self-promotion which told us precisely f... all. Ms Ali is apparently a highly qualified plastic surgeon, which should make her an ideal expert to present such a programme. But the whole hour was taken up with shots of the elegantly clad Ms Ali looking wistfully over Paris rooftops; elegantly coutured Ms Ali walking through autumn treescapes; close-ups of beautifully made-up Ms Ali looking down a microscope; more shots of an expensively clothed Ms Ali elegantly strolling down the Champs Elysees; yet more shots of Ms effing Ali showing her classic profile and fluttering her expensively made-up eyelids while chatting to some professor. And so it went on, for an entire hour! The only vaguely scientific bits that came out of the programme were nothing more than lightly veiled commercial puff for two of the big cosmetic companies. Truly an hour of my life wasted (but Mrs r wanted to watch it in the hope of picking up a few hints) that reinforces OFSO's gripes about the shallowness of the Beeb's current offerings. And there was me thinking that Horizon was one of Auntie's flagship science programmes.
I may somehow have given the impression that the BBC today produces (sorry, "buys from independent producers for vast sums of money") only complete and utter self-serving transatlantic cr*p.
Well, I just finished watching Ian Hislop's excellent program on how Beeching destroyed the rural rail network of Great Britain.
It was excellent.
But there are far too few Ian Hislops, aren't there !
