All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Colin Swan: Why, exactly, is the BBC 'too big for its boots'? Are you saying it should only make amazingly boring and unpopular programmes that nobody wishes to watch? Or should it, as Briantist points out, provide a service for everyone? I think the latter, and I suspect the majority of viewers think so too.
' to uphold the Christian morals of the population' - wouldn't that be an ecumentical question? (sorry, couldn't resist!)
| link to this comment |
Colin Swan: 'any very large organisation becomes very unmanageable and very un-accountable.' - using such logic, you would have to conclude that no organisation could ever be large, because of the risk that it could become 'unmanageable'. And while the BBC may not be perfect (the article at the top of the page says as much), it is generally far more open than most organisations of its size, complexity or area of business. In fact, you cannot move for 'questions' about the BBC's conduct, warrented or not.
When newspaper columists and other 'Very Serious People ' (as Paul Krugman put it) use phrases like unmanageable and very un-accountable', they dont mean that at all. Instead its code for 'you are run by the state, and your pretty good at what you do'.
The BBC (and the size and breadth of the organisation's ouput) offends those that think such things can only and should only be done by the free market. If you are Sky, would you like a vastly slimmed down BBC? Yes. And thats understandable for fairly obvious reasons.
If you ideologically think that the state should be small enough 'to drown in a bathtub' (in Grover Norquist's phrase), then a state broadcaster is an affront, and a popular one, even worse.
Its certainly the case that one former DG has said something about the size of the BBC, but it has been pointed out that his business holdings would benefit from any more outsourcing of BBC production, and that his plan to split the licence fee would benefit another (commercial) broadcaster, which he also used to head. The best comment I read about his idea that the DG job was too complex was someone pointing out that no one could be PM, because the government must be too complicated to run as well.
The debate over the licence fee is an old one, but if you'd read Briantist's article on the Licence Fee 14 reasons why you should stop moaning about paying the TV Licence every day | About UK Free TV | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice , you'd see that it was good value for money, that far more was spent on actual programming than Sky Does the BBC or BSkyB spend more on programmes? | About UK Free TV | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice .
Briantist also included the information that '97 per cent of UK adults (47 million people) consume at least 15 minutes of a BBC service in an average week, and they spend over 19 hours a week on average with the BBC.' The number of people who don't use the BBC in the UK are vanishing small. And its worth pointing out that if you only listen to the radio, you pay nothing at all.
Since there is at present, no practical way to collect a subscription based on what BBC services you use, and such a system would actually add to costs, what do you suggest?
UCB apparently has an audience 'in the hundred's of thousands' New faces of televangelism | Rationalist Association and is mostly funded by donations. Thats not really a viable model for a national broadcaster.
One thing did just occur to me. If you dont use the BBC at all, and therefore dont wish to contribute to it via the licence fee, then that is a legitimate question. But if you dont, how do you know that its programmes do not 'uphold the Christian morals of the population'?
| link to this comment |
Briantist: Looking at Reith's Wiki article, you also discover that 'In 1914, Reith left Glasgow for London, largely in pursuit of a 17-year-old schoolboy, Charlie Bowser, a fast friend', who ended up as his postwar assistant in an engineering firm. So certainly just the sort of person to be shocked by his BBC Chief Engineer being found with an actress on a table...
The other thing is that Reith was totally unqualified for the post of General Manager of the British Broadcasting Company - if someone like him was appointed today, I imagine there would be some questions asked as to why. So unqualified, hypocritical, extremely difficult to get on with - yet he did launch the BBC and give it its guiding ethos.
| link to this comment |
Briantist: No matter who heads the BBC, nobody is going to do a perfect job, or be a perfect person (something Douglas Adams might have occasionally agreed with!).
You were quite right to point out that even a figure like Reith was, in reality, less than perfect, and anyone who thinks that the BBC should be sliced and diced because of 'scandals' should take the long view.
If you look at the list of BBC scandals from the twenties onwards, many would have been front page news today, but were hushed up or dealt with via backroom deals. Peter Eckersley's love life might have been public knowledge after Dorothy Clarks divorce, but before that it was very much kept within the establishment. Likewise, the coverage of the General Strike simply would not have been allowed today, and Churchill's absence from the BBC in the thirties would be a clear cause celeb.
You can see why the BBC becomes more controversial from the late 1950's onwards - more output and a changing attitude to sex, religion, class and politics. Try watching an interview with Macmillian from the late fifties - bland would be the kindest description. By the early sixties, TW3 is lampooning politicians in a way that simply didn't happen before (and TW3 only got away with it because they were part of Current Affairs, and so didn't have to abide by BBC rules on comedy). There is a reason that Mary Whithouse starts 'Clean Up TV' in 1964 - there are finally things on it that actually might offend her.
For the past 30-40 years, the BBC has had to deal with upset politicians, moralists and anyone else who does not like something. As technology has got more immediate, there is less time to censor, check or think about what goes out, and there is more output than ever before. They also have to put up with more ideological sniping than before - the critics very often have an agenda.
Thanks to Twitter and 24 hour news, you can create a storm out of anything, and the BBC is often so keen to show how unbiased it is by reporting every problem in far worse a light than most peple on the street think it actually is. Perhaps some perspective is needed next time there are questions raised about the BBC and its leadership.
| link to this comment |
Pat: Look at the manual. If you've got a freeview TV, its called that because it has a Freview/Freeview HD tuner built into it. Have a look at the FAQ's - the most popular is about connecting TV's to dishes. You cant - you need an aerial.
| link to this comment |
AJ Rich: To follow up on earlier advice - most TV's from major brands should now be HD ready or Full HD panels, and now with a Freeview HD tuner. If its really cheap, then it will probably just have a Freeview tuner. HD ready TV's can have HD tuners in them, but I keep noticing that places like Argos big up the 'HD' part, but not really making it clear that that tends to refer to the panel, not the tuner.
You might not 'have not been cheated', but you might have been misled (HD has been largely standard for three years). If its a new TV, then I'd change it for one with a Freeview HD tuner - the extra cost is not huge, but if you dont, your going to need another box to get HD on the TV. Having said that, a recorder with Freeview HD will allow you get those HD channels
| link to this comment |
dennis: Dennis - you cant record Iplayer (your PC can download programmes, but only for 7 days). Could you tell us what TV make and model you have? It sounds like you have a smart TV, so its pretty unusual not to have an HD tuner in one.
| link to this comment |
Eddie Stacey: Panasonic actually has a pretty good reputation with the tech support people where I work. Like all the four big brands, you tend to get pretty good components, etc. However, you can get unlucky (one lady had 5 different TV's from 3 different manufacturers in eighteen months), and I quite understand if you've had a bad experience, you'd want a different brand. I'm surprised that the DVB is touchy (although the tuners are actually very sensitive), but again, these things happen.
What was the model and the actual problem? You said that the TV 'packed up' - was it the panel that went? If it did, then the TV is basically a writeoff. A lady came in a couple of weeks back, after her TV had developed a problem (which had been bought from Argos, not us). Our chap in tech support said that such a TV panel (if one could be sourced), would cost around £250. Considering the cost of a new TV, replacing the panel often makes no sense. Our TV's all come with a five year warrenty as standard, so if it wasn't worth repairing it, we'd just replace with the nearest model.
If you are about to buy another TV, its the end of the TV year (April is when the new models will start), so I'd get in quick, because stocks are really running down. LG, Samsung and Sony are all solid brands, I'd have no problem recommending them.
| link to this comment |
Philip Hind Woodward: Does your signal come and go at any particular time? (in which, sounds just like local interference), or does it happen more randomly?
I'm just wondering if your system has a fault/break which manifests itself during wet weather, etc. Moisture can get into a broken coax cable, and kill your signal, but be ok when its dry.
| link to this comment |
Monday 17 February 2014 10:54PM
Michael Walker: 2025 is both very close and very far away in technology/industry terms. If it was to happen, then broadband not only has to be free to all, it also has to be universal and fast enough to allow not only all the programming that might be demanded by a household at any given time (and possibly in 4K), but also all other needs, from surfing the net, gaming, smart meters and appliances, etc. It will be interesting, looking at where we are at present, to see if a decade will be enough.
Goodness knows how the media landscape will be in ten years time, but I suspect that people will still want to watch a decent quality programme on a decent sized screen, and in many cases, will want to watch it as it happens, rather than recording or catching up on it. For many, change will be slow, because human beings often take a long time to get used to a new technology, and some will reject it completely. Which might be a problem for TV over the internet if people dont want the internet, even if it is free!
An interesting comment from Thinkbox in reply to a comment about recording and ads.
' On the contrary, BARB doesn't count an ad as viewed unless it is at normal speed (hence a FF ad is free to advertisers). Also, more than 85% of TV is watched live where fast-forwarding is impossible. There are a small % of determined ad avoiders (Guardian readers?), whatever the medium, but, interestingly, levels of time-shifting are broadly similar on BBC channels and their commercial equivalents. Genre is the most important determinant for time-shifting; drama high, sport/news low. Common sense really.'
The 85% figure might fall, but its interesting that we still watch so much TV live, even though we've had the ability to record/time-shift for over 30 years. I suspect that wanting to watch things live is therefore a human trait, despite the technolgy, and thats possibly not going to change hugely.