BBC coverage to be given the "Olympics treatment"

[James Bolivar]

Likewise the effect of the BBC is much more than just what it broadcasts. It creates a quality threshold that others have to aspire towards, rather than them always going for lowest common denominator stuff (which is what free-market TV brings you). It also sets a price threshold for those alternatives.

So even tho you hate everything about its output it's still giving you value.

Edited February 1, 2013 by James Bolivar

[James Bolivar]

There's another plus side, you can record all the commercial stuff not worrying that you didn't get to see BIG SHOT SUPERSTAR on the main stage and go have some fun in the smaller venues.

[James Bolivar]

Sometimes I find myself annoyed with the BBC then I remember two things: -

1) Murdoch hates it

2) The Daily Mail hates it

and it passes....

[abdoujaparov]

In Our Time is worth the licence fee on it's own and the sort of thing that no commercial radio would ever broadcast.

[Mardy]

I agree that this is how it should work, but it is no longer true; if it ever was. Just compare the BBC's award winning "Merlin" with the commercially produced "Game of Thrones". Both high-fantasy escapism, but one is clever, layered, beautifully produced, scripted and acted and the other is by the BBC. If you want to see how a costume drama should be done watch "The Borgias" - written and directed by Neil Jordan it is sumptuous, beguiling, informative and fun. Aunties own attempt at the Borgias was staid and stagey and utterly awful; though that was a long time ago.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Mardy

[James Bolivar]

You see, what you've doen there is compare the best output from one place with the worst from another. Slightly disingenuous that.

I could do it the other way round and get similarly skewed results.

[Vanderlyle]

Sometimes I find myself annoyed with the BBC then I remember two things: -

1) Murdoch hates it

2) The Daily Mail hates it

and it passes....

[Mardy]

Don't get me wrong, I think we live in a golden age for TV, the Wire is the best piece of narrative fiction I've ever watched. Personallly I can't stand GoT, but I don't like that kind of stuff. HBO and showtime do make some very good stuff, but it's not all good, not by a long stretch

However, living abroad, as I do, I cherry pick the best of the BBC's output and at it's best, it's easily comparable to HBO, and covers a much wider range of programming. And it's a million miles better than any TV in any of the countries I've lived in.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Mardy

[James Bolivar]

But can eFests and Bolivar stop their dumb market v command economy debate. Head off elsewhere for that, it's not like either of you will change your views (quick stop off at this point to say that, of course, Neil is right

[James Bolivar]

Don't get me wrong, I think we live in a golden age for TV, the Wire is the best piece of narrative fiction I've ever watched. Personallly I can't stand GoT, but I don't like that kind of stuff. HBO and showtime do make some very good stuff, but it's not all good, not by a long stretch

However, living abroad, as I do, I cherry pick the best of the BBC's output and at it's best, it's easily comparable to HBO, and covers a much wider range of programming. And it's a million miles better than any TV in any of the countries I've lived in.

[hawkzred]

My issue is with how the BBC is run, just google search BBC expenses and then think about the unique way they are funded; and then ask could it be done differently?

From Michaels perspective the fee received helps towards the charitable donations that the festival makes, so no issue there.

When there is such waste and abuse of the license fee by the BBC inevitably there is an issue of value for money.

Edited February 1, 2013 by hawkzred

[eFestivals]

I agree that this is how it should work, but it is no longer true; if it ever was. Just compare the BBC's award winning "Merlin" with the commercially produced "Game of Thrones". Both high-fantasy escapism, but one is clever, layered, beautifully produced, scripted and acted and the other is by the BBC. If you want to see how a costume drama should be done watch "The Borgias" - written and directed by Neil Jordan it is sumptuous, beguiling, informative and fun. Auntie's own attempt at the Borgias was staid and stagey and utterly awful; though that was a long time ago.

oh ... so you do watch the BBC after all. You said you got nothing from it. Porkies!

Wow, a broadcaster has been bettered by another broadcaster over something similar - that's only ever happened at anywhere but the BBC of course. PMSL.

You don't understand how a quality threshold works. It makes others come up to the same level - which means they all manage to have output at around the same levels, where some do some programmes better than others at various points.

They'd be no point at all of other broadcasters if everything they produced was by definition inferior, would there?

It's not the case that the BBC never does produce outstanding drama, is it? (I'm no big fan of drama, and I'm unlikely to watch it. But I know it's there). Just because it gets bettered sometimes or even often does not make it pointless.

[eFestivals]

My issue is with how the BBC is run, just google search BBC expenses and then think about the unique way they are funded; and then ask could it be done differently?

the thing is, other broadcasters won't be doing anything much different with expenses for doing their jobs, so where's the difference apart from the decision to target only one for loading extra costs onto its customers?

Either a business expense is justified or it's not. Who is making that business expense does not by itself define it as wrong.

[hawkzred]

the thing is, other broadcasters won't be doing anything much different with expenses for doing their jobs, so where's the difference apart from the decision to target only one for loading extra costs onto its customers?

Either a business expense is justified or it's not. Who is making that business expense does not by itself define it as wrong.

Edited February 1, 2013 by hawkzred

[eFestivals]

The BBC are supposed to be providing a public service of sorts, so that differentiates them from most companies or tv channel providers.

Forget the emloyee submitting expenses, the BBC should not be allowing such extravagance in the first place.

the point I'm trying to make is that it's not "extravagance" but standard business practice (for that industry, at least).

If that's you considering that the BBC are wasting your money then so are also any other broadcaster you use and even the ones you don't use - and that's wasting even more of your money than the BBC is (the money paid for the adverts is taken from you at the till of Tescos via the products you buy. You don't even have to watch the adverts or those channels, you pay for it anyway).

So either you should be outraged about them all ripping you off, or you shouldn't have a problem with any of them doing those things. After all, what goes around comes around.

[James Bolivar]

oh ... so you do watch the BBC after all. You said you got nothing from it. Porkies!

[James Bolivar]

the point I'm trying to make is that it's not "extravagance" but standard business practice (for that industry, at least).

If that's you considering that the BBC are wasting your money then so are also any other broadcaster you use and even the ones you don't use - and that's wasting even more of your money than the BBC is (the money paid for the adverts is taken from you at the till of Tescos via the products you buy. You don't even have to watch the adverts or those channels, you pay for it anyway).

So either you should be outraged about them all ripping you off, or you shouldn't have a problem with any of them doing those things. After all, what goes around comes around.

[eFestivals]

I am aware of some BBC output and, occasionally, will even try to watch it - it's always so awful I don't stay the course.

yeah, everything the BBC does is awful.

C'mon, you're more than welcome to sensible views, but with comments like that do you really expect anyone to take the views you're giving seriously? It has some of the best output in the world, and it's recognised around the world for doing just that. Just because some things you might have high hopes for don't reach your expectations doesn't make everything about it awful.

You say you don't watch drama - and there in lies the rub, I only want to watch drama and Auntie doesn't do it at all well.

More stuff that's making me laugh. It might not suit you, but to say that the BBC doesn't do drama well as a blanket statement is ridiculous.

Ao I'm back to my original point - I am not served by an organization I am forced to fund.

and yet you are. It still creates the quality threshold that you clearly benefit from with other broadcasters, as well as helping keep the prices you pay elsewhere cheaper than they'd otherwise be.

[eFestivals]

But this is Tax money and we have no choice in paying it. I can choose not to buy Birdseye Ready Meals or any of the shit produced by Heinz or any other advertised products. I can choose not to subscribe to Sky or Netflix or Virgin, but if I want to watch any of the tv I do pay for I am compelled, by law, to also pay for the BBC. Given that, they have a duty to use that money responsibly.

And using it responsibly is surely making reasonable competition with other broadcasters? Cos I can't see how it would be responsible use of money to be deliberately worse than other broadcasters.

To compete means to work to roughly the same standards as others, else you stop competing and end up only with the shite.

Even so, right now there's big efforts going on inside the BBC to reduce wages of senior people to something that would be more acceptable to people like you - so what happens is that ordinary people but ones with a love for the BBC, are sacrificing their personal income to keep the likes of you happy ... when I bet that you'd not give up any of your income on the basis of someone who knows nothing about your job or industry having a beef about what you're paid and the income it extracts from them as a result.

I don't actually have a problem with the Beeb's expenses being reigned in to quite possibly how you'd like them to be - but I also don't wish others to be able to live it up at other broadcasters, where it's not possible for me to have anything like the same influence on what they spend on their expenses at my expense than I can the BBC.

If (say) an expensive hotel room is not necessary for a BBC man to do his job then it cannot be necessary for a person in the same role at another broadcaster to do his job, either. Both of which both you and I pay for, whether we want to or not (avoiding Heinz's products is not enough to escape paying for what Heinz puts on TV - because you don't know what products Heinz had a hand in (they're not all marked as Heinz).

[James Bolivar]

This is turning into a tennis match so I'll stop, but if you can point me at a current BBC drama I would really like then I will accept your notion of a "quality standard" and concede that Auntie still has some value. For this to work it has to be an ongoing dramatic series, one off plays won't cut it as they don't deliver. By the Ghost of Dennis Potter I don't think you'll find one.

Oh! The "quality standard" for this bottoms out at Carnivale or Huff - don't need to find anything as good as The Wire or even Mad Men.

[eFestivals]

This is turning into a tennis match so I'll stop, but if you can point me at a current BBC drama I would really like...

so if there's not an award winning one that you like on right now, everything it does is awful?

... then I will accept your notion of a "quality standard" and concede that Auntie still has some value.

I'll have to concede that it can't match your standards for quality.

Which, I think, says more about you than it does the BBC.

Edited February 1, 2013 by eFestivals

[hawkzred]

the point I'm trying to make is that it's not "extravagance" but standard business practice (for that industry, at least).

If that's you considering that the BBC are wasting your money then so are also any other broadcaster you use and even the ones you don't use - and that's wasting even more of your money than the BBC is (the money paid for the adverts is taken from you at the till of Tescos via the products you buy. You don't even have to watch the adverts or those channels, you pay for it anyway).

So either you should be outraged about them all ripping you off, or you shouldn't have a problem with any of them doing those things. After all, what goes around comes around.

Edited February 1, 2013 by hawkzred

[eFestivals]

Condoning a champagne lifestyle; regardless of the industry on a Glastonbury forum does not feel right to me.

lol - that's certainly not what I'm doing, or trying to encourage you to do. I'm saying that if it's wrong for the bcc it's wrong elsewhere too - cos in both cases we pay for it whether we like it or not. The BBC is not very different at all in that respect, cos it's just about impossible to buy the food you eat without there being an advertising cost included.

I am fully aware that we are viewed as consumers, however surely the Beeb have a moral duty to act differently from the other stations?

and it's certainly doing so now, with having booted out the likes of Jonathan Ross cos he wanted stupid money. It's not just with expenses that it can be extravagant.

But it's still a balancing act. If it acted solely as you're suggesting, it would ultimately end up with a shite output all-round and then ceases to serve any reasonable purpose at all. It needs to work at around the standard industry levels else it'll only get crap staff and crap stars.

It can exploit the fact that its the BBC to some extent - so stars and staff will work for less money and less good perks - but if it cuts those too much from the industry standards then they'll entirely lose the good will that makes that possible.

After all, for just about anyone, if offered a job in the private sector or a job in the public sector for half the money and worse perks, which job will people go for?

Ultimately you're expecting something from the people who work for the beeb that you probably wouldn't go along with yourself (and if not you personally, then certainly a massive proportion of the population).

Suppose I better take myself for an extended stay in Left Field this year!

I wish many more at the festival would. Edited February 1, 2013 by eFestivals

[Detective McNulty]

Couldn't bare to watch so much coverage of Glasto if I wasn't there. Would be torture. In fact if I ever didn't get a ticket I think i'd have to leave the country for a couple of weeks.

[James Bolivar]

But it's still a balancing act. If it acted solely as you're suggesting, it would ultimately end up with a shite output all-round and then ceases to serve any reasonable purpose at all. It needs to work at around the standard industry levels else it'll only get crap staff and crap stars.