Reforming the BBC...

dilemna

What ever, the BBC needs to radically improve it's reporting on cycling matters and cyclists killed by motons. The standard of editing news articles is appalling. I reckon many of them deserve a big kick up the bum and some to lose their jobs.

Porgy

It's looking like the BBC is having to admit it hadn't thought things through when it announced plans to scrap 6Music.

anyone see Paxman grilling Mark Thompson on Newsnight?

Guardian wrote:

BBC2's Newsnight turned into "When Jeremy met Mark" last night as Jeremy Paxman did his best to skewer the BBC director general, Mark Thompson. Despite some memorable gurning, Paxo didn't quite hit the mark. But he scored an easy hit by asking Thommo if he knew what was on BBC4 last night. No, admitted the DG, but he did know what was on BBC1. So Paxo reminded him: "It starts with the news, a repeat of a documentary, Skippy: Australia's First Superstar, a repeat no less, Paws, Claws and Videotape, a clips show about famous animals, a bought-in film, Skippy: Australia's First Superstar again, Paws Claws and Videotape repeated, Storyville, a repeated documentary, then Paws, Claws and Videotape again but with subtitles." Thommo was briefly wrongfooted, saying Radio 4 when he meant BBC4. The giggle you can hear in the background belongs to Kelvin MacKenzie, we think, part of a panel who later discussed the BBC. MacKenzie is currently asking famous people to pose for pictures with him to appear in his Sun column. No word on whether he asked Thompson. Paxo/Thompson began seven minutes into last night's programme. As the DG waited to be interrogated – 40 seconds in – he clearly didn't know which face to pull. Serious? No, try a smile. Maybe a little laugh? No, wrong, back to serious again! So many emotions, so little time....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r9xy9/Newsnight_02_03_2010/

I wish Paxman had pushed the point he made about 1extra a bit more - the point was that 1extra costs the same as 6music and has less listeners - so why isn;t that being scrapped?

and if BBC3 can be justified as a testing ground for new talent - then surely 6Music does that job far better then BBC3 ever did?

None of the BBC's strategy makes any sense whatsoever. Once I'm not feeling so angry I'm going to write a letter.

verylonglegs

spen666 wrote:

Cressers wrote:

They are duplicated by commercial stations and have little to offer to the cultural life of the nation.

Hmmm that would be why milliions of people listen to those stations everyday.

Why not just abolish the BBC and be done with it?

Personally I appreciate the music on R1 & 2 and do not agree it is duplicated by commercial stations

I like the news content on R5 and I do watch BBC3 & 4, so why should your biggotted censorship prevent me watching the programmes I like.

Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

I agree with Cressers to a degree and your point about freedom of choice isn't quite true as those who would like to own a tv but not watch and therefore not pay for any of the carp the BBC produces are unable to do so, if you own a tv you are supposed to have a license. This makes it a tax on owning a tv which means I have to fund nonsense like eastenders when all I want to see are my dvd's and the sports channels.
Ideally those that treasure it so much should fund it through voluntary contributions.

giant_man

GiantMike wrote:

Melt Chris Moyles down and make candles out of him. Lose Chris Evans, Ferne Cotton, Sarah Cox, Reggie wotshisname.

Do more intelligent programming and less pointless DJ rambling.

Oh, and replace Radio 3 with "Radio freewheel", the station for cyclists, playing uplifting tunes to commute/race/TT/MTB to. All DJs have to be fit chicks in Lycra shorts (I know we wouldn't know, but we could imagine).

+ 1- the sole reason i don't listen to R1. Radio 2 (with the exception of Chris bloody Evans) is so much better.

Bunneh

BBC 3 and 4 are excellent; I would actually suggest removing BBC1 because it's utter crap 9 times out of 10. If it's not some god awful house renovation show it's some equally terrible episode of Eastenders. I do not see the point in the interactive channel/s, the thought of a chocolate fireguard comes to mind...

Of course none of our opinions matter because the BBC wiull do what it bloody well likes.

deebizzle

Anybody who's spent more than an hour watching TV or listening to radio in America will be pretty grateful for the BBC and the fact that we have public service broadcasting in this country.

That doesn't mean to say that I don't agree with it being trimmed down.. Personally, I'd scrap Beebs 3 & 4 and use the extra bandwidth for a second, free-to-air HD channel - particularly as freeview HD launches this year.

BBC THREE has been around for what, 8 years?, and in that time it's produced a handful of good shows (Little Britain, Mighty Boosh, Being Human, Gavin and Stacey and erm, that's it). They've all been shown at some point on the main channels anyway and would be available via the iPlayer.

Best thing on BBC FOUR is Mad Men (an American show they've bought) and most of it is shown on BBC TWO at some point anyway. Shove the Proms/concerts on the red button services.

And Bernie Ecclestone gets around £200 million of license fee money to allow the Beeb to show fricking F1 for the next 4 years. I'd give it back to ITV in a heartbeat.

Tom Butcher

Yes rather than shut down stations they should be looking at some of the big expenditures that haven't really added anything above what the commercial stations could do.

Formula 1, Premier League football, Jonathon Ross - those three must add up to a fair bit and are they really the kind of thing we need a public service broadcaster to shell out for. From what you hear quite a few of the executives are overpaid too so there is some more fat there that could go. I'm not convinced by the need for celebrity presenters either - I noticed the singer from Catatonia has a show on Rad 6 - I don't know what they pay her but I'm guessing a bit more than someone who might be just as good but who didn't have a career as a high profile singer

As for the website - well I think a decent website is important but I'm not convinced it needs to cost the earth if it concentrates on telling us what is coming up and offering us a chance to watch things that have past. I imagine it's huge amounts of original content specifically for the internet which is expensive.

beverick

I can't see why we need 5 mainline BBC TV stations. Transmit BBC1 on BBC HD (as per channel 4). Merge BBCs 2,3 and 4 into two channels. News24 should be the flagship news channel in the UK. It should should lead the news and not follow Sky News.

On the radio, can 1 xtra and 5 live sports extra but move some of 5live sports extra's alternative schdules onto radio 7 (TMS, alternative premier league matches, tennis, golf etc). Merge radio 2's daytime schedule and radio 6 and merge radio 2's evening schedule with radio 7.

CBBC and Cbeebies can merge, perhaps with some of the programmes transferring onto the merged 2,3 and 4 channels.

I agree with the sentiment that the BBC shouldn't pay huge amounts for presenters but I temper this with the fact that you have to pay for quality in these areas (where that leaves Jonathan Ross I'm not sure!).

BTW, someone mentioned abandoning DAB but this is not an option as the Goverment has announced that the FM spectrum will close in 2016.

Bob

asprilla

dmclite wrote:

Does the BBC not make money selling programmes to other countries ?

Yes, enough to reduce the licence fee by about £7 per person per year apparently.

The BBC is also currently spending about £600m a year on infrastructure projects, like the moves to Manchester and Glasow. Some of this spend was foisted upon the Beeb because it was deemed to be too London centric; as a result new sites have to be constructed and large number of people have to be relocated out of London (that's where the skills are and they can't be replaced locally).

CBBC And Cbeebies cater for different age groups and so probably shouldn't be merged. Besides, kids TV are some of thier biggest sellers overseas.

Personally I think they are doing the right things with the radio stations, I'd just change the remits of R1 and R2 to include what they are loosing from R6. R5X only broadcasts when there is something that clashes with an event already being broadcast on R5, so it's not really a massive additional cost.

I also agree with the decision to cut much of the web content of BBC.co.uk, but that's nothing new, that was recommended by the trust some time ago.

shouldbeinbed

Porgy and Beverick +1

chapeau to both posts.

balthazar

Tom Butcher wrote:

As for the website - well I think a decent website is important but I'm not convinced it needs to cost the earth if it concentrates on telling us what is coming up and offering us a chance to watch things that have past. I imagine it's huge amounts of original content specifically for the internet which is expensive.

That's the expensive bit. I'd bet that streaming massive amounts of data through iPlayer soaks up the bulk of the Beeb's web budget. In comparision, "original web content" is a hobby.