Blobs post_id=27862 time= user_id=758 Wrote:

tellyblues post_id=27834 time= user_id=1333 Wrote:

Blobs post_id=27753 time=1626258109 user_id=758 Wrote:I think "are all these journalists really necessary?" Is very much a part of that. Chris Moyles has mentioned this before. Comparing the public perception of the BBC, fuled by the media, of everyone sitting around burning license fee money to light their cigars while brainstorming the best ways to waste as much money as possible to his experience at the BBC of being denied paper clips because they were an "unnecessary expense".

Do you even have proof that what Moyles said has influenced an opinion on here? Can't someone come to a conclusion without the need for a third party?

I think we are all intelligent enough on this forum to know how broadcasting works and are fair and unbiased with our comments, which is why it is rather annoying when someone jumps in and accuses people of wanting to get rid of stuff they don't like.

It is telling that someone who questions the licence fee is bombarded with reasons why it is important yet someone who doesn't isn't.

Yes, it's weird how people want to defend a national cultural institution when it's under attack?. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, you completely misunderstood my post and I'm bored of this now. Everyone else is probably is too.

tellyblues post_id=27889 time= user_id=1333 Wrote:

Blobs post_id=27862 time= user_id=758 Wrote:

tellyblues post_id=27834 time= user_id=1333 Wrote:Do you even have proof that what Moyles said has influenced an opinion on here? Can't someone come to a conclusion without the need for a third party?

I think we are all intelligent enough on this forum to know how broadcasting works and are fair and unbiased with our comments, which is why it is rather annoying when someone jumps in and accuses people of wanting to get rid of stuff they don't like.

It is telling that someone who questions the licence fee is bombarded with reasons why it is important yet someone who doesn't isn't.

Yes, it's weird how people want to defend a national cultural institution when it's under attack?. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, you completely misunderstood my post and I'm bored of this now. Everyone else is probably is too.

Saying others want to get rid of things because they don't like them is in no way a defence. It's a pathetic slur.

People happy with the licence fee because they get what they want contradicts what the licence fee is for. That they are left alone and others are not is hypocritical and moreover indicative of a pro-BBC stance. You seem to think that any questioning of the BBC's activities is anti-BBC despite the fact that these people regard it as much a cultural institution as you do.

Blobs post_id=27927 time= user_id=758 Wrote:

tellyblues post_id=27889 time= user_id=1333 Wrote:

Blobs post_id=27862 time= user_id=758 Wrote:Yes, it's weird how people want to defend a national cultural institution when it's under attack?. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, you completely misunderstood my post and I'm bored of this now. Everyone else is probably is too.

Saying others want to get rid of things because they don't like them is in no way a defence. It's a pathetic slur.

People happy with the licence fee because they get what they want contradicts what the licence fee is for. That they are left alone and others are not is hypocritical and moreover indicative of a pro-BBC stance. You seem to think that any questioning of the BBC's activities is anti-BBC despite the fact that these people regard it as much a cultural institution as you do.

I'm still confused. My point has always been it's not going to be as easy as people seem to think it would be to reduce/axe services that millions of people value.

tellyblues post_id=27945 time= user_id=1333 Wrote:

Blobs post_id=27927 time= user_id=758 Wrote:

tellyblues post_id=27889 time= user_id=1333 Wrote:Saying others want to get rid of things because they don't like them is in no way a defence. It's a pathetic slur.

People happy with the licence fee because they get what they want contradicts what the licence fee is for. That they are left alone and others are not is hypocritical and moreover indicative of a pro-BBC stance. You seem to think that any questioning of the BBC's activities is anti-BBC despite the fact that these people regard it as much a cultural institution as you do.

I'm still confused. My point has always been it's not going to be as easy as people seem to think it would be to reduce/axe services that millions of people value.

That's not how you stated your opinion to begin with. "Bat s**t crazy solutions". Accusing people of getting rid of things simply because they didn't like them.

The BBC regularly make decisions that are unpopular with millions of licence fee payers but people get over it.

I don't know what you're confused about. The licence fee isn't about giving everybody what they want but when someone says they are happy paying it because it does, you say nothing. As opposed to when someone questions the licence fee, you see fit to remind them even though their opinion is likely nothing to do with personal taste. It's hypocritical, swayed by your unwavering, pro-BBC stance.

Anyway, that's my final word on this subject.

tellyblues post_id=27889 time= user_id=1333 Wrote:People happy with the licence fee because they get what they want contradicts what the licence fee is for. That they are left alone and others are not is hypocritical and moreover indicative of a pro-BBC stance. You seem to think that any questioning of the BBC's activities is anti-BBC despite the fact that these people regard it as much a cultural institution as you do.

Steve Williams post_id=27684 time= user_id=1326 Wrote:

johnnyboy post_id=27644 time= user_id=925 Wrote:In an ideal world, BBC management would be focused on creating a piece of appointment viewing (a film, a drama, a new series, and so on) once a week to increase the popularity of the corporation and people's respect and affinity for it. Because it's not doing that as well as it used to right now.

Just the one?

This week they're showing a new documentary about the NHS by the acclaimed historian David Olusoga - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000xwz6

On Sunday there's a new series of Baptiste, the first series of which was sold around the world, and the sequel to The Missing which was nominated for multiple BAFTAs, Emmys and Golden Globes - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09f94d8

Next Tuesday there's a documentary from the Oscar-winning director Steve McQueen on race - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000y3kq

All of these are on primetime BBC1, and I would consider them appointment viewing.

Is this an atypical week? Well, it's the middle of summer, where TV viewing is traditionally at its lowest, it's between the Euros and the Olympics and TV production was totally crippled for several months last year meaning all broadcasters have less new content. And still there is new, high profile content from major writers and directors. Seems to be exactly what is being requested.

To give it a wider context, in The Guardian's Top 50 of the best TV shows of 2020. eighteen of them are from the BBC, including six of the top ten. That's more than Netflix - https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/dec/03/the-50-best-tv-shows-of-2020

You could argue some of those are acquisitions and shows where the BBC are only co-producers, but Sky happily embrace programmes like Succession as Sky programmes, and we all know Netflix are happy to whack "Netflix original" on everything, regardless of how little they have to do with them. Even for the acquisitions, it relies on the BBC buying them and it means they can be seen by the widest audience imaginable rather than putting them behind a paywall.

And if you think the Guardian's chart is a Brit-centric list and outside the UK the Beeb can't compete, here's Rolling Stone's chart, with I Will Destroy You and Normal People in the top ten (plus What We Do In The Shadows, which is also on the BBC). The only British shows in the top ten, I think - https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-lists/20-best-tv-shows-2020-1098246/how-to-with-john-wilson-hbo-1098339/

As for whether other broadcasters could do these programmes, Michaela Coel is on record as saying she turned down doing I May Destroy You on Netflix and wanted to do it on the BBC because they gave her far more creative control. So if the BBC hadn't been involved, that series absolutely would not have been made the way the talent would have wanted it to be made - https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2020/07/07/i-may-destroy-yous-michaela-coel-rejected-netflixs-1-million-offer-in-favor-of-the-bbc-because-of-ownership/?sh=240b58621fc7

And all that, while still also making Homes Under The Hammer.

johnnyboy post_id=27966 time= user_id=925 Wrote:

tellyblues post_id=27889 time= user_id=1333 Wrote:People happy with the licence fee because they get what they want contradicts what the licence fee is for. That they are left alone and others are not is hypocritical and moreover indicative of a pro-BBC stance. You seem to think that any questioning of the BBC's activities is anti-BBC despite the fact that these people regard it as much a cultural institution as you do.

Agreed tellyblues - that's why, although I respect his/her opinions and generally welcome his/her contributions across the forum, I've stepped out of the conversation with Blobs on this occasion.

TBH, I used to be like Blobs in the sense of any criticism of the BBC was an attack and that the BBC was as near perfect as it could be in its current form. I genuinely get where s/he's coming from because I still absolutely bloody love the BBC and I am proud of it but I am now worried for its future because of its current reach and structure.

S/he made a good point about the profit imperative earlier in this thread and I thought it was there we could get some common ground.

The need to make profit has the effect of blunting the ability to take risks and be genuinely innovative because there's always someone to pay off at the end.

If more money could be invested in programming like this by transferring those services where the room to take risks is small or non-existent, particularly in radio and online, the Beeb could find the funding required to create even more big budget, world beating programmes out there IN ADDITION TO the standard quality fare we're used to.

I didn't want to abolish any service - just transfer them even though there might have been a slight reduction in quality because a profit imperative would be introduced.

However, arguing with uber-BBC lovers like Blobs (and myself 10-20 years ago) is pointless because they perceive it as an attack on an institution they genuinely cherish.

I get that but it leaves little room for conversational nuance.