Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popular

[Deckerd]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

I liked Shoestring.

Yeah me too, the theme tune brings back fond memories!

Shoestring was a show? I thought it was just the budget Doctor Who used to have.

Splutter! Cheeky young whippersnapper. Why if I were 20 years younger ... mumble mumble

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Yeah me too, the theme tune brings back fond memories!

Shoestring was a show? I thought it was just the budget Doctor Who used to have.

Splutter! Cheeky young whippersnapper. Why if I were 20 years younger ... mumble mumble

You'd not remember it either?

 

[captcalhoun]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Hm. Let me get this straight.

A publicly-funded broadcasting corporation, which operates on the basis of a compulsory license fee paid by all owners of television sets, should not use the license fee to pay for shows that a large percentage of license fee payers enjoy?

In other words... money that people have to pay should not go to things they like?

I understand the rationale behind the license fee -- it ensures that quality programing that might not be commercially viable will get a chance and that commercialism will not utterly control all television. But I would argue that that means the BBC's obligation is to find a balance between using the license fee to fund shows a huge percentage of fee payers enjoy and using the license fee to fund shows that would otherwise not get a chance on commercial TV. It shouldn't all be just one or the other.

That makes no sense. If a show is genuinely popular, then why can't it survive commercially?

Like it or not, when people are forced to pay for something, then it's because someone has decided they know what's best for them, better than the person does. Left to their own devices, people would be selfish and not pave roads or build schools, hence their money must be taken from them and applied to these things. The PBS philosophy is that the entertainment analogue to roads and schools are ballet and left-wing documentaries about the Middle East. You may not like these things but too bad. The nanny state says you should take your medicine.

I can agree about the roads and the schools, but TV shows is where I draw the line. What gives someone the right to decide for other people what is good for them, in the entertainment realm? Can't people be trusted to know and seek out what they enjoy? I'd love to see PBS take Americans' money and create a kick ass space opera a la DS9 (which incidentally did need seven seasons) but I'd understand if 90% of America screamed their heads off about it. I'd scream my head off if they made another cop show or dumbass comedy instead, so I'm not willing to leave it up to the whims of a government bureaucrat.

In the end, I know the market will create shows that suit my tastes more reliably. I can't even remember the last show I watched on PBS. I just wish more people (specifically, more ad-watching/cable-subscribing people) liked space operas. That's where the real problem lies, the fact that I'm not in charge of all TV production.

the thing you have to remember is, the BBC WAS television for over a decade. we only had one channel through the 50s into the early 60s. then ITV started and the BBC still had a 50% market share. it wasn't until the 1980s that Channel 4 arrived and the BBC was still the dominant force since it had BBC1 and BBC2. it's only since the rise of satellite TV and Five's addition to the analogue terrestrial market that the BBC's lost its pre-eminent position.

but tehy're still the biggest kid on the block as Xmas TV ratings proved when they had 8 of the top 10 programmes for Christmas Day.

 

[diankra]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Temis, the argument for the licence fee comes in two stages...

1) It ensures that programmes which would never be made by a commercial channel (because they have too much of a niche audience, or are too much of a risk. Doctor Who was, seven years ago, an example of the latter) can be funded at the start.
2) As every TV owning household has to pay it, it should provide programmes for everyone in any family that pays. Pop music Radio 1 as well as classical music Radio 3, EastEnders as well as Our Friends in the North, The Onedian Line as well as I Clauddius.
And when it all works best, then some of the eliitist stuff that would never get off the ground otherwise becomes a popular hit. Even on Radio 1, which has always tried to have a few slots where the DJs can run weird new stuff that they think might be big next year (and when John Peel was still alive to DJ that slot, he was usually right).

 

[Sci]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Hm. Let me get this straight.

A publicly-funded broadcasting corporation, which operates on the basis of a compulsory license fee paid by all owners of television sets, should not use the license fee to pay for shows that a large percentage of license fee payers enjoy?

In other words... money that people have to pay should not go to things they like?

I understand the rationale behind the license fee -- it ensures that quality programing that might not be commercially viable will get a chance and that commercialism will not utterly control all television. But I would argue that that means the BBC's obligation is to find a balance between using the license fee to fund shows a huge percentage of fee payers enjoy and using the license fee to fund shows that would otherwise not get a chance on commercial TV. It shouldn't all be just one or the other.

That makes no sense. If a show is genuinely popular, then why can't it survive commercially?

Like it or not, when people are forced to pay for something, then it's because someone has decided they know what's best for them, better than the person does. Left to their own devices, people would be selfish and not pave roads or build schools, hence their money must be taken from them and applied to these things. The PBS philosophy is that the entertainment analogue to roads and schools are ballet and left-wing documentaries about the Middle East. You may not like these things but too bad. The nanny state says you should take your medicine.

I can agree about the roads and the schools, but TV shows is where I draw the line. What gives someone the right to decide for other people what is good for them, in the entertainment realm? Can't people be trusted to know and seek out what they enjoy? I'd love to see PBS take Americans' money and create a kick ass space opera a la DS9 (which incidentally did need seven seasons) but I'd understand if 90% of America screamed their heads off about it. I'd scream my head off if they made another cop show or dumbass comedy instead, so I'm not willing to leave it up to the whims of a government bureaucrat.

In the end, I know the market will create shows that suit my tastes more reliably. I can't even remember the last show I watched on PBS. I just wish more people (specifically, more ad-watching/cable-subscribing people) liked space operas. That's where the real problem lies, the fact that I'm not in charge of all TV production.

And congratulations for you. However, the British are a different culture, and they've decided that there's a legitimate public interest in making there there's an independent, publicly-funded TV channel out there paid for by a tax on TV reception called the "television license," and that it's there to make sure that commercialism doesn't control the airways entirely. Their cultural values are different, and they reject the idea that the television license is some sort of limitation on their freedom.

The television license is a done deal. The question is how they ought to implement the television license, not whether or not it's there.

 

[Sindatur]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

So...Does Doctor Who bring in more money, than it uses up? (Considering the ability to sell the airing rights to other markets) If so, I see nothing wrong with allowing BBC to continue that relationship, they brought the show to this point, they shouldn't be forced to push a money making bird out of the nest.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

So...Does Doctor Who bring in more money, than it uses up? (Considering the ability to sell the airing rights to other markets) If so, I see nothing wrong with allowing BBC to continue that relationship, they brought the show to this point, they shouldn't be forced to push a money making bird out of the nest.

Since it's their second most successful show in terms of international sales and merchandising, almost certainly. I believe Top Gear is the only show that's more successful.

 

[Bacl]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

I'm not British, and I steal the show for free, so I could give a rat's ass.

 

[Jax]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Just wanted to wade into the fee issue...

If all our investments were as good as the BBC we wouldn't be in so much shit, the fee paid is nothing when compared to how much good the BBC does to the UK economy with jobs among other things.

The BBC just needs to do a bit of trimming in places and be more efficent in places.

 

[Captain Shaw]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

So...Does Doctor Who bring in more money, than it uses up? (Considering the ability to sell the airing rights to other markets) If so, I see nothing wrong with allowing BBC to continue that relationship, they brought the show to this point, they shouldn't be forced to push a money making bird out of the nest.

Since it's their second most successful show in terms of international sales and merchandising, almost certainly. I believe Top Gear is the only show that's more successful.

And If Tg was on a commercial channel, it would have not made it past the first series.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

So...Does Doctor Who bring in more money, than it uses up? (Considering the ability to sell the airing rights to other markets) If so, I see nothing wrong with allowing BBC to continue that relationship, they brought the show to this point, they shouldn't be forced to push a money making bird out of the nest.

Since it's their second most successful show in terms of international sales and merchandising, almost certainly. I believe Top Gear is the only show that's more successful.

And If Tg was on a commercial channel, it would have not made it past the first series.

Would probably have been a lesser show that wouldn't have been so popular.

 

[diankra]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Would probably have been a lesser show that wouldn't have been so popular.

You've sort of got your proof of that in Fifth Gear: for those who don't know (and there's no reason why anyone outside the UK should know), the original Top Gear (very serious about cars) ran on the BBC from about 1980 to 1998.
The BBC then cancelled it, so most of the team went off and made a near identical show, Fifth Gear, for the new commerical station Channel Five.
A few years later, the BBC launched the new Top Gear with the comedy trio of Clarkson (a veteran of the original), Hammond and May.
Fifth Gear is, I think, still on TV, but if it isn't, that shows how noticeable it is in comparison.

 

[Starkers]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Unfortunately fifth Gear is hampered by actually being a car review show

I have a few issues with the BBC (Jax is right it definitely needs to trim down) but pound for pound it makes better drama than any other terrestrial or digital channel in the UK, and imports a damn sight less US shows than them as well. It's quite scary to imagine the BBC disapearing, aside from the odd Primevel or Downton Abbey, and good C4 sitcoms, we'd basically be watching even more American telly or else I'm a celebrity would be on all year round...

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Unfortunately fifth Gear is hampered by actually being a car review show

I have a few issues with the BBC (Jax is right it definitely needs to trim down) but pound for pound it makes better drama than any other terrestrial or digital channel in the UK, and imports a damn sight less US shows than them as well. It's quite scary to imagine the BBC disapearing, aside from the odd Primevel or Downton Abbey, and good C4 sitcoms, we'd basically be watching even more American telly or else I'm a celebrity would be on all year round...

You see, I think the BBC should trim down a little but I don't really know what I think they should trim. I mean I think BBC Three is becoming a really good channel with their documentaries and occasional drama or comedy that really works. From the women at war things to the body image stuff and the health documentaries. Seems like the stuff C4 would have done at one time but rarely do any more.
BBC Four I would not be without.
BBC Two needs to refocus a little but still has great stuff.
BBC One of course is just the mainstream channel but does some brilliant stuff as well.
That leaves us with the radio, and what to get rid of there? Radio 1? Perhaps but where else would really take the risk to try and break new acts to a wide audience? Not sure
I wouldn't get rid of any of the niche stations either, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all have worthwhile stuff, and the stuff like 1X and The Asian Network have an audience they serve so would it be right to get rid of them?
The we come to the website and stuff like the recipes, headspace and science sites which are good resources and deserve a place so again not sure it'd be right to get rid of that.
So what do you cut? I'm not sure I'd like the job of trying to make a case for it.

 

[Starkers]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Well they could spend less on taxis for a start

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Well they could spend less on taxis for a start

And how do you recommend they spend less? A fleet of cars and round the clock drivers? Making presenters and stars pay for their own travel? I mean no reason they can't pay for their own way to work but travel for work should be covered. Find a cheaper, less reliable taxi service?
Yes, £14m sounds a lot, and is in real terms but when you're talking thousands of people doing jobs that may require it it's probably not that much per day per person.

 

[Starkers]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Work doesn't pay my travel unless I'm going somewhere (which is fair enough). the point I was trying to make is that the BBC, like any huge organisation, probably wastes money all the time that doesn't really have any positive impact on programming.

I work for the NHS, and needed to go to London yesterday, so work paid my train ticket, which is fair enough. They didn't send me to London in a taxi at twice or three times the cost ala the Match of the Day presenters (who, lets face it, probably a lot more than either of us ever will)

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Work doesn't pay my travel unless I'm going somewhere (which is fair enough). the point I was trying to make is that the BBC, like any huge organisation, probably wastes money all the time that doesn't really have any positive impact on programming.

I work for the NHS, and needed to go to London yesterday, so work paid my train ticket, which is fair enough. They didn't send me to London in a taxi at twice or three times the cost ala the Match of the Day presenters (who, lets face it, probably a lot more than either of us ever will)

No, you're right there are undoubtedly savings that could be made. Though it's a little different expecting a star to take a cheap rail fare than me or you. Not like we're going to be recognised and possibly hounded the whole trip because of who we are.
So yes, savings are probably there to be made, but arbitrarily saying this should be cut or that should be cut isn't helpful really, black and white rules never work, and it'd take a full accounting team with years to pour over the books to find real savings I would think.

 

[Starkers]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

No I can see the logic of it, its just that I sometimes think the BBC (and a lot of other public funded bodies) don't given nearly enough consideration to the Daily Mail test

Plenty of celebrities either drive themselves places, or else have a driver, and plenty more do use the train/tube.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

No I can see the logic of it, its just that I sometimes think the BBC (and a lot of other public funded bodies) don't given nearly enough consideration to the Daily Mail test

Plenty of celebrities either drive themselves places, or else have a driver, and plenty more do use the train/tube.

Daily Mail test?
Sure, I don't see why they shouldn't just like everyone else, but then surely the money would just be spent paying them for their petrol if they're driving somewhere for the job?