Read this: Charter Proposals: Your Views
Summary: Two colleagues share their thoughts on the Charter proposals outlined on Monday by Director General Tony Hall at the Science Museum in London. Claire believes we must guard against complacency and also robustly defend ourselves against criticism. - www.bbc.co.ukRead full article: Charter Proposals: Your Views…
Lots more recommendations to read at Trends - ukfree.tv.
Summaries are done by Clipped-Your articles and documents summarized.
The BBC needs to accept that there is no need to cut services or make massive use of repeats/re-runs or indeed cut the making of programmes.
It also needs to accept that for years it has allowed "stars" to have unnecessarily large overinflated salaries simply because viewers liked them rather than accepting its financial limits and staying within them.
No matter how good someone is they can always be replaced.The BBC Trust itself has set a poor example itself in this respect. The truth is that the money saved from not paying these high salaries can be ploughed into well thought out programme development. Like ITV,the BBC has programmes in its archives which many modern viewers have not seen.
There has been a lot of focus on high definition pictures but no-one, especially TV manufacturers, has focused on high definition sound. If a programme is recorded with sound-effects and background music drowning out speech,there is little the viewer can do about it especially if the viewer is hard of hearing. We need to move into a new era where the viewer can have separate volume controls for speech, sound effects and background music with the option to turn them off if necessary. We also do not need to have programmes where the lighting is so bad the viewer can barely see the action taking place.
The BBC has placed itself in its current situation because it has allowed so much waste. The Jimmy Savile scandal has not helped and viewers will be wondering what steps have been taken to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Cutting staff removes talent and skills, reducing salaries keeps everybody affordable and in work. The BBC has a lot to do to salvage its reputation and if the licence fee does go that job will be a lot harder.
It will be interesting to see if the BBC Trust can rise to the challenge. Only time will tell.
|link to this comment|
Kevin Finn: If you can find any programmes/films on any channel which allow you switch on and speech. sound effects and music at will, let us know! In fact HD audio is now coming to music production, but the best way if improving the sound from the TV is to improve the speakers - a pair of 10w speakers cannot give you the best sound, and therefore invest in a sound system. If you can't see the action, thats seldom down to the lighting on the production.
You say that there is no need for the BBC to 'make massive use of repeats/re-runs', but then state 'the BBC has programmes in its archives which many modern viewers have not seen.'. So you want repeats, but dont want repeats? In reality, we all want new programmes, and complain about repeats. In fact the BBC has a policy of not showing repeats in primetime, and frankly, a lot of programmes in its archive would not be acceptable to a modern audience in either productions values or quality. Original programming costs money, and because the BBC does far more of it than anyone else, thats where much of the money goes.
'It also needs to accept that for years it has allowed "stars" to have unnecessarily large overinflated salaries simply because viewers liked them rather than accepting its financial limits and staying within them. '
Sorry, but this is simply derp. The BBC tends to pay on screen talent less than its rivals, but gets away with it because it will often make programmes nobody else does, and can therefore attract talent which would otherwise go elsewhere. ITV and Sky pay more than the BBC does, its as simple as that. The idea that the BBC could get away with paying little more than bus money and luncheon vouchers is some thing thats suggested frequently, but in the real world, who would you get? In fact you can see exactly what you would get - Local TV channels have onscreen 'talent' that are pretty much doing it for free. How many people watch them?
If the BBC already pays (often far) less than the market rate, how can they keep or attract staff? Many people, such as costume designers, makeup artists, set builders, etc would simply go elsewhere. A cut is salary to the point where people leave is cutting staff.
The BBC is a horse being starved by its owner, who at the same time is making it carry more and more. And the owner beats it as well. A sensible person would want a decent funding level restored, and for some of the extra burden to be removed. If its done something wrong, make sure its corrected, but generally, its 'crimes' are ones whch could happen to any media organisation.Yet strangely, its only the BBC that gets slammed by politicans and much of the press. The BBC never covered up Savile's crimes, nor did it hacks a dead schoolgirls phone, but look where the coverage seems to be concentrated.
|link to this comment|