There might be other producers on Doctor Who but the real power is Moffat! We all know that!
JB
JB
Age of the Federation....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Well, I'd say the real power lies with the BBC execs who hired Moffat, and who hired Russell T. Davies before him and Chris Chibnall after. And they hired them to be in charge of the creative direction of the show, because that's what a showrunner's job is. If they didn't like the decisions the showrunner made, they could fire him. If they do like his decisions, they keep him. Nothing shocking there. After all, the BBC owns Doctor Who. Moffat doesn't. He's only in control because they chose him to be in control.
It's the same for me when I write a Star Trek novel. My editor hires me to write a novel and then leaves it to me to determine the story and the way it's told. If they have issues with elements of the story, I'm asked to make changes, but usually they trust me to make the decisions. If they weren't happy with my work, they'd just stop hiring me. I have "power" over the Trek fiction I write only to the extent that my employers choose to grant it to me. They only give me free rein because they're satisfied with what they get as a result. Television, as a writer-driven medium, works much the same way. Writers are placed in positions of authority because those jobs need to be filled and they have demonstrated that they're qualified to fill them. Just because their employers trust them to make decisions rather than micromanaging them, that doesn't mean they don't still answer to their employers. It just means they're filling the roles they were hired to fill.
J. Michael Straczynski has said that the only reason he became a producer/showrunner in the first place was that he wanted to go high enough up the executive ladder so that he wouldn't be rewritten any more.
He`s a guy that needs rewriting, IMO.
The BBC could care less what that hack does with the show as long as it brings in lots of cash and doesn't bring them into disrepute! The BBC, although loved by most of the world has always been seen as a money grabbing conglomerate in the UK! It's about time they were privatised!
JB
Huh? That's a contradiction in terms. Private corporations are the money-grubbing conglomerates. Publicly funded broadcasters are the only ones that have the freedom to focus on quality over profit. That's why the only reputable broadcast news outlets in the US anymore are NPR and PBS -- because they're the only ones whose content isn't slanted by their corporate masters.
Well I don't profess to know about tv companies in the US, Chris, but I do know how crafty the BBC are, thanks!
JB
JB
People never appreciate what they have until they lose it. No system is perfect, so whatever system is in place will get blamed for whatever problems people perceive. But the alternatives are often worse.
The BBC of today is not quite what it was in the 60s. I am seeing more and more British people that want to lose it and keep their money rather than pay for the BBC.
That does remind me, what does the Federation use for equivalent to modern telecommunications for the public?
That does remind me, what does the Federation use for equivalent to modern telecommunications for the public?
Everything, I'd wager. That is, the public can choose from an infinite range of media through which the information reaches them, customizing everything for the individual user. Some may prefer feed akin to today's mass broadcasts. Others may set up their system so that news reach them in the form of encyclopedic entries. Others may wish to view the world through the eyes of a blogger or reporter or adventurer, either a live one or more probably a virtual construct created to their own specs. Many no doubt get a printed newspaper "delivered" to their holo-homes, the entire writing, printing and delivering process extending no farther than the door of said holo-home and existing solely for their personal benefit.
We know of a conventional-looking news agency or two: we see TLAs in the intro to ST:GEN, and we know Jake Sisko sends stories to the Federation News Service. We get no impression that this would be the only game out there, though.
Timo Saloniemi
We know of a conventional-looking news agency or two: we see TLAs in the intro to ST:GEN, and we know Jake Sisko sends stories to the Federation News Service. We get no impression that this would be the only game out there, though.
Timo Saloniemi
I think they would come to regret that. I think it's enviable not to have to put up with commercial television as one's primary outlet. The problem with commercials is that they just take over more and more of the content. Fifty years ago, an "hourlong" show could have as much as 55 minutes of content. These days it can be as low as 40 minutes. And it's not bad enough that commercials have taken over fully a third of every hour, they keep sticking them into the actual stories as well, with product-placement scenes where characters show off the neat features of their new car or tablet or whatever.
Not to mention how terrible it's been for cable. We used to have so many specialty channels offering classy programming devoted to the arts or science or public affairs or genre niches, but because they had to pander for ratings, they ended up becoming more and more homogenized and changing formats to focus on "reality" shows or reruns or the like. Good luck finding any actual educational programming on The Discovery Channel anymore, now that Mythbusters is gone. CourtTV, which used to show around-the-clock trial coverage, dropped it for around-the-clock "reality" garbage. The FCC used to require a certain percentage of broadcast content to have educational or social merit, but the right wing stripped it of that power and trusted the market to regulate itself, which only guaranteed that the profit motive would swamp any commitment to public service, journalistic responsibility, or educational value.
Really, these days in the US, we have to pay for cable service anyway, just to private companies instead of the government. Just like we pay premiums to health insurance companies rather than paying taxes for national health insurance. And that hasn't turned out very well either. At least if you give your money to the government, they're answerable to the voters when it comes to what they do with it. A corporation is answerable only to its shareholders.
The trouble is the BBC is not a opt out sort of thing! If you want to watch ITV or even the other channels you still have to pay for a license! The BBC too waste a lot of the public's money by sending their executives on trips to places. A famous account back in the eighties where they had concluded a deal for Japan to buy some of their programming and the executive insisted on flying out there and doing the deal (even though it had been finalised the week before) and staying in the best hotel in Tokyo! They keep telling us how lucky we are to have them and that they are making so many new shows while bogging the evenings down with repeats that can easily be bought on DVD!
JB
JB
That's how public services work. Everyone pays in and everyone benefits. Maybe you're paying for a government service that someone else benefits more from than you, but others may be paying for a different service that you're getting more benefit from. So it evens out.
Sure, government-run services aren't immune to inefficiency or corruption, but like I said, they're answerable to the voters, and it's the prerogative and responsibility of the voters to be active and involved and hold them to account. Corporations are unaccountable -- except by government regulation. I'm not saying your system is perfect, but getting rid of it might well turn out to be even worse.
No one elects corporate executives either, but we've given them most of the power over our lives by this point. I still don't see how that's supposed to be better.
I'm not telling you what's better, that's for every one to decide for themselves.
Depending on the circumstances, the stockholders elect the executives.
But executives are not the ones that do the actually do the work, the employees do. The employees of a company must be profitable to keep the company profitable. They can be replaced if they are not good workers. A government does not have to be profitable, and is quite often wasteful.
One of the reasons is budgeting by a committee that says you get x amount for y reason. In a corporation, if a manager comes in under budget they may be able to get bonuses to continue to excel or the company could fold those extra profits into improvements, if a government manager gets done under budget, he gets a smaller budget next year, so they make sure they use that money up no matter how foolish the spending is. New $20 staplers for everybody!
Also, if you don't like a particular business, most times you can deal with another business. You can go to another government for your services if the one you have isn't any good. Just ask the veterans about the VA and it's great and efficient service. If a government can't provide health care for a segment of the population, what makes it think it could do it for the whole population.
So even though many elected officials are subject to being replaced, the millions of people that actually do the work of the government are not and they are not properly managed to be efficient.
I would also like to demur from any more posts of this nature, it's off topic and I recognize the two of us to be opinionated individuals. I enjoy your posts even though I have very different opinions, I value your insight. I don't know if the reverse is true and you need not say, but I find these kind of discussions difficult as I am not as articulate as I would like to be.
Depending on the circumstances, the stockholders elect the executives.
But executives are not the ones that do the actually do the work, the employees do. The employees of a company must be profitable to keep the company profitable. They can be replaced if they are not good workers. A government does not have to be profitable, and is quite often wasteful.
One of the reasons is budgeting by a committee that says you get x amount for y reason. In a corporation, if a manager comes in under budget they may be able to get bonuses to continue to excel or the company could fold those extra profits into improvements, if a government manager gets done under budget, he gets a smaller budget next year, so they make sure they use that money up no matter how foolish the spending is. New $20 staplers for everybody!
Also, if you don't like a particular business, most times you can deal with another business. You can go to another government for your services if the one you have isn't any good. Just ask the veterans about the VA and it's great and efficient service. If a government can't provide health care for a segment of the population, what makes it think it could do it for the whole population.
So even though many elected officials are subject to being replaced, the millions of people that actually do the work of the government are not and they are not properly managed to be efficient.
I would also like to demur from any more posts of this nature, it's off topic and I recognize the two of us to be opinionated individuals. I enjoy your posts even though I have very different opinions, I value your insight. I don't know if the reverse is true and you need not say, but I find these kind of discussions difficult as I am not as articulate as I would like to be.
Last edited:
Well, the point is, the grass is always greener. I hate commercial TV and Brits hate the BBC, and we both envy each other's system. I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for.
Scrap tv like Trek forecasts and just watch our DVDs! Apart from The Walking Dead there isn't much worth watching on the box these days!
JB
JB
Soooo... How about that Age of the Federation, huh? 
Similar threads
- Poll
