O/T tv licence

[Scum-Triumphant]

I’m not against paying less than £3 a week for public television. It doesn’t bother me personally either way. I rarely watch television. This is not because I’ve got better things to do with my precious time it is because terrestrial television is packed with the same:
Cooking programmes. 3/5 have them on at the same time on a Saturday morning.
Reality TV
Antiques
Following round emergency services
Following around debt collectors.

Where is the creative talent? Where is the variety? Where is the comedy?

Talent has been saturated to death on terrestrial telly by lazy, poor and cheap television for years.

If it wants to continue, it needs a massive overhaul.

[KerrAvon]

I am largely with you, scum. And it illustrates my point that when you have more and more broadcasters chasing a fairly fixed amount of advertising revenue the outcome will be cheap populist TV like 'Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away' where a production company takes advertising money to make entertainment out of debt fuelled misery.

The BBC disappoints me in the 'safe' approach to its programming these days. If you look back at some of the comedy it produced in the past you can see that it was quite innovative and willing to use largely unknown talent in a way that it isn't today.

[howdydoo]

I’m not against paying less than £3 a week for public television. It doesn’t bother me personally either way. I rarely watch television. This is not because I’ve got better things to do with my precious time it is because terrestrial television is packed with the same:
Cooking programmes. 3/5 have them on at the same time on a Saturday morning.
Reality TV
Antiques
Following round emergency services
Following around debt collectors.

Where is the creative talent? Where is the variety? Where is the comedy?

Talent has been saturated to death on terrestrial telly by lazy, poor and cheap television for years.

If it wants to continue, it needs a massive overhaul.

A public service that pays people like Graham Norton and Gary Lineker the vast sums of money they do, needs an overhaul. Just not worth it.

Not against the BBC but it needs to go back to basics.

Anyone caught up with Times Radio since it’s been launched on DAB radio?

John Pienaar early evening show is worth a listen (IMHO). Only time of day I tend to listen to the radio so couldn’t comment on other shows on the station.

[KerrAvon]

agree with you too, Howdy. I don't understand why the BBC is willing to pay the money that it does to some 'stars'. I suspect that I am in a minority in thinking that Lineker does a decent job on MOTD, but I think there are almost certainly people who could do the job at least as well for less.

[Silly-miller]

It all boils down to value for money if you don’t use it your being ripped off, if you do use it your ok with it.
BBC is in a sorry state, when you see a bbc program like bake off being sold off to channel 4, you would never had seen that 20 years ago

[WanChaiMiller]

agree with you too, Howdy. I don't understand why the BBC is willing to pay the money that it does to some 'stars'. I suspect that I am in a minority in thinking that Lineker does a decent job on MOTD, but I think there are almost certainly people who could do the job at least as well for less.

I suspect, they may feel they are in a ratings battle and need to attract what they consider the best. I dont know the going rate for these 'stars' but understand they earn more with commercial broadcasters (I dont know that for a fact).

Like any other businesses there is competition for top quality employees. The BBC are not immune. I take your point that there will always be someone prepared do it for less.

Interesting theres been a bit of a stir on Twitter that Andrew Neils' contract has not been renewed.

[Scum-Triumphant]

I am largely with you, scum. And it illustrates my point that when you have more and more broadcasters chasing a fairly fixed amount of advertising revenue the outcome will be cheap populist TV like 'Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away' where a production company takes advertising money to make entertainment out of debt fuelled misery.

The BBC disappoints me in the 'safe' approach to its programming these days. If you look back at some of the comedy it produced in the past you can see that it was quite innovative and willing to use largely unknown talent in a way that it isn't today.

This Country is a perfect example of what you mean but it is the exception.

There was a time when comedy screen writers would be falling over themselves to get into the BBC. Inside Number 9 is excellent when it's more funny than dark but it is fairly subjective (My wife hates it)

Talking of comedy shows, I recently started the US version of The Office. In 12 episodes and a xmas special Ricky Gervais managed to tell develop several characters and complete all their arcs. Whilst funny in it's own right, I cannot understand why there are so many, So far I have watched 24 and I am still not off the second series. It is like watching the same episode over and over again.

Maybe CAM can answer why this works better for american viewers but I am going to stop watching in a few more episodes because it's boring.

Americans do great drama but really laboured comedy.

[WanChaiMiller]

I’m not against paying less than £3 a week for public television. It doesn’t bother me personally either way. I rarely watch television. This is not because I’ve got better things to do with my precious time it is because terrestrial television is packed with the same:
Cooking programmes. 3/5 have them on at the same time on a Saturday morning.
Reality TV
Antiques
Following round emergency services
Following around debt collectors.

Where is the creative talent? Where is the variety? Where is the comedy?

Talent has been saturated to death on terrestrial telly by lazy, poor and cheap television for years.

If it wants to continue, it needs a massive overhaul.

Maybe the creative talent is being lured away by bigger contracts from commercial broadcasters.

[KerrAvon]

This Country is a perfect example of what you mean but it is the exception.

There was a time when comedy screen writers would be falling over themselves to get into the BBC. Inside Number 9 is excellent when it's more funny than dark but it is fairly subjective (My wife hates it)

Talking of comedy shows, I recently started the US version of The Office. In 12 episodes and a xmas special Ricky Gervais managed to tell develop several characters and complete all their arcs. Whilst funny in it's own right, I cannot understand why there are so many, So far I have watched 24 and I am still not off the second series. It is like watching the same episode over and over again.

Maybe CAM can answer why this works better for american viewers but I am going to stop watching in a few more episodes because it's boring.

Americans do great drama but really laboured comedy.

I was going to mention 'This Country' as an exception to the rule, but decided not to as it is not to everyone's taste. Innovative comedy made with unknown actors. The BBC should and could do more.

[WanChaiMiller]

The BBC provides a public service and couldn't do that if it had to chase advertising revenues.

Take Radio 4 - not to everyone's taste, I know - but the dramas, debates and factual programmes on there are amazing. I would pay my licence fee for them alone, but the audiences are such that they could not be made on advertising revenues.

Look at some of the Attenborough style natural history programmes - cutting edge stuff that is hugely expensive, but so risky that I suspect a private advertising funded body would not make them.

Funding via licence allows the BBC to make niche programmes that nobody else would.

We should cherish what we have.

Im reading this thread in reverse. Totally agree with Kerr. Im a regular on radio 2 and 4 and 5Live.

I tend to prefer live football on radio to watching it on tv. TMS and boxing is excellent. The specialist pod cast type sports shows are equally good.

Radio and the web site is worth the licence fee alone.