BBC & The Future | Page 10 | Vital Football

BBC & The Future

Pangloss said:
I guess they want 'talent' to attract viewers because they care about ratings, they also have a commercial arm that presumably brings in a lot of money. Talent here would either be people very good and experienced at the job - which you could argue some of the news readers fall into this category or those who the BBC consider will be 'over' with an particular audience.

If you paid £80k you will basically get even poorer quality individuals doing a job and no one will watch anything. £80k isn't exactly a huge some of money, especially in media. If the 'stars' are only on that they want about producers, writers etc, they would be massively cheapened so then the entire production quality plummets.

Then the BBC will resemble something akin to an obscure satellite channel quality wise.
Click to expand...

£80K is a fantastic wage when you're in media and your job is to report, not entertain. It was one of the Athletic's pulls when they launched, they paid a far better wage to seasoned journos but that wage was no where near £80k either.

Plenty of good presenters on that list that are very watchable and engaging and good at their job but fall in under the £200k mark and there are others at the BBC who earn far less as they don't even appear on that list.

You're argument on talent on this front falls down on that basis given those who appear above the £200k line.

I do however fully agree with you on the more entertainment front, but as I'm sure you'd agree, the more entertaining elements of the BBC (take out soaps etc) are commercial anyway but the programmes that are successful and make real money (that the BBC also benefits from) should be forced to repay their seed money so there is a benefit without leaning on taxpayers.

But for football punditry, no chance, for news, no chance - on those fronts the BBC should be the kudos where you prove yourself and you either take the stability of the job and a generous pension or you establish yourself, use the kudos, and then fuck off for the truly commercial money - which is absolutely their right - but it shouldn't come at the taxpayers expense.
 
BBC forced to issue a groveling postumous apology to Diana , William and Harry, plus damages to Tiggy Legge Bourke, re Bashir interview. Our money being wasted again.
If this was Sky there would be an outcry from the left about shoddy journalism, but once again the BBC will carry on regardless in the full knowledge they have a bottomless pit of money, so they don't care.
 
300 odd more job removals whilst they spunk money on pointless names, and yesterday of all days local BBC reporters/presenters show the names how they should hold truth to incompetent power.
 
I did mean to mention this ages ago so forgot most of the details now. But a senior BBC reporter genuinely questioned a top copper earlier tonight on why the Police weren't charging more criminals and taking them to court.

Whether it was badly edited or not, the interview as played made him seem oblivious to the fact the Police don't fucking charge (in a court sense) suspected criminals - that would be the Crown Prosecution Service.

Even the copper looked a bit dumbfounded to me when trying to answer.

This is basic 101 stuff and I can't even give leeway that he was trying to educate by letting people know the Police don't charge, as there were 100's of different ways of proving the same point without looking idiotic.
 
Apparently they are re vamping the local radio stations and planning on sharing national coverage from 6pm onwards. That would have a huge effect on local football coverage which in my opinion is second to non and it includes non league football as well.

Local radio coverage in the Midlands has been an institution since I can remember and it would be a disgrace if that was canned.
 
sirdennis said:
Apparently they are re vamping the local radio stations and planning on sharing national coverage from 6pm onwards. That would have a huge effect on local football coverage which in my opinion is second to non and it includes non league football as well.

Local radio coverage in the Midlands has been an institution since I can remember and it would be a disgrace if that was canned.
Click to expand...
Correct sirdennis. Their football coverage is their only saving grace, and you don't need a license to listen to that.
 
How bloody condescending of the BBC.Get rid.
"The BBC will redirect its television budget to make “lighter” dramas and comedies in the belief they will appeal to Britons from poorer backgrounds.

The broadcaster also said it would try to attract viewers from lower socio-economic groups by making sports documentaries and crime shows, after criticism from Ofcom that these audiences are more likely to watch commercial outlets such as ITV.".
The above is from today's Graun.
 
Would be nice if they got back to their remit which was educate and entertain, how much sport and crime do we need on the TV - or put another way, isn't that why we have a choice of channels?

I'll raise you this - Tim Davie is a fucking idiot.

The BBC is preparing to shut down its traditional television and radio broadcasts as it becomes an online-only service over the next decade, according to the director general, Tim Davie.
BBC preparing to go online-only over next decade, says director general | BBC | The Guardian

As someone who has the Beeb on more than any other channel, take it off my TV and I'm not paying the licence fee.
 
mike_field said:
Would be nice if they got back to their remit which was educate and entertain, how much sport and crime do we need on the TV - or put another way, isn't that why we have a choice of channels?

I'll raise you this - Tim Davie is a fucking idiot.

The BBC is preparing to shut down its traditional television and radio broadcasts as it becomes an online-only service over the next decade, according to the director general, Tim Davie.
BBC preparing to go online-only over next decade, says director general | BBC | The Guardian

As someone who has the Beeb on more than any other channel, take it off my TV and I'm not paying the licence fee.
Click to expand...
Davie also said the BBC needed more money from the government or there would be further cuts to its World Service output. “The Russians and Chinese are investing hundreds of millions in state-backed services. We have a choice to make.”
Totally deluded, comparing two communist countries to a free market western economy.
If they want the World Service for propogander purposes let the government pay for it, and recoup it from BBC commercial outlets. Cheeky sod is looking forward to a Labour government that will give them more cash. No surprise there.
I haven't watched the BBC in years, to the extent that I wanted to watch a recent World Cup game that was only on BBC and had to retune the tele because BBC had gone from the channel listings because nobody has looked at it in ages. When I retuned it East Enders was on, same old crap, same old faces, all leaching a living from the tax payer.
Time to get rid.
 
Labour shooting themselves in the foot again.
"Labour says it is committed to retaining the BBC as a universal, publicly owned, publicly funded public service broadcaster."
 
wittonite said:
Labour shooting themselves in the foot again.
"Labour says it is committed to retaining the BBC as a universal, publicly owned, publicly funded public service broadcaster."
Click to expand...

It has to, if you've listened to nothing but my bollocks mate we need an independent source of news without bias. The BBC needs reforming, not scrapping.

I'm with Starmer on that one.
 
Pangloss said:
I seriously doubt public opinion is in favour of scrapping the BBC
Click to expand...
Replying to you and @mike Field. No, not scrapping. Let those that watch it pay for it. Subscription. BBC always claiming it is a World leader in broadcasting, so stand on your own two feet, nothing to be frightened of. The current model is also unfair to other tv channels that don't have the luxury of being able to churn out shit at someone else's expense.
 
wittonite said:
Replying to you and @mike Field. No, not scrapping. Let those that watch it pay for it. Subscription. BBC always claiming it is a World leader in broadcasting, so stand on your own two feet, nothing to be frightened of. The current model is also unfair to other tv channels that don't have the luxury of being able to churn out shit at someone else's expense.
Click to expand...
That *would* be scrapping the BBC as we know it.

A lot of that "shit" is informative and educational programming that simply wouldn't get made under a commercial model. World Service, Open University, quality regional programming, niche interest, serious history and science programming. It also trains a huge number of TV, film and radio tech professionals at a benefit to the wider industry (that we're also a world leader in).

The BBC actually drags the standard of the whole of British broadcasting up from where it would otherwise be.

Just ask people from anywhere but the UK what they think of the BBC and they would likely tell you that you were insane for contemplating making it just another subscriber service.
 
Platypus said:
That *would* be scrapping the BBC as we know it.

A lot of that "shit" is informative and educational programming that simply wouldn't get made under a commercial model. World Service, Open University, quality regional programming, niche interest, serious history and science programming. It also trains a huge number of TV, film and radio tech professionals at a benefit to the wider industry (that we're also a world leader in).

The BBC actually drags the standard of the whole of British broadcasting up from where it would otherwise be.

Just ask people from anywhere but the UK what they think of the BBC and they would likely tell you that you were insane for contemplating making it just another subscriber service.
Click to expand...
From a purely selfish point of view I watch very little television and object to being forced to pay for something I rarely use. I maintain the view that if it's so good then the well paid lovies at the Beeb have nothing to fear. As for World service, again something listened to by people who don't contribute. Raising industry standards, not the publics job to pay for media industry training. They get great salaries, pay for your own training.
As for asking people around the UK what they think of the BBC and the tax that pays for it, and I really think the majority would be in favour of it standing on its own two feet. It's from another era of little or no choice when people were happy to pay because there was nothing else. That has all changed. Young people don't pay, because they don't get their fix that way, and BBC are losing an average hundreds of thousands of tax payers per year, year on year. It will go the way of the Berlin Wall once a critical point is reached. Sooner the better.
 
Platypus said:
That *would* be scrapping the BBC as we know it.

A lot of that "shit" is informative and educational programming that simply wouldn't get made under a commercial model. World Service, Open University, quality regional programming, niche interest, serious history and science programming. It also trains a huge number of TV, film and radio tech professionals at a benefit to the wider industry (that we're also a world leader in).

The BBC actually drags the standard of the whole of British broadcasting up from where it would otherwise be.

Just ask people from anywhere but the UK what they think of the BBC and they would likely tell you that you were insane for contemplating making it just another subscriber service.
Click to expand...
Just checked, in 2021/22 1.96 million people stopped paying the licence tax . That's not sustainable.
 
wittonite said:
Just checked, in 2021/22 1.96 million people stopped paying the licence tax . That's not sustainable.
Click to expand...
You're right. It should be brought into general taxation, like schools, hospitals, motorways, disability payments, and all that other stuff that not everyone uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.