The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Isn’t it about time adverts (spit) just curled up in a ball and died? Interrupting TV & Radio with their relentless rattle’n’babble repetitious sheepshank. Nobody cares. Nobody is listening.
They used to snoot: “The ads are the best thing on TV, haw haw.” But not anymore. Now there are so many of the damn dirty w****s that it’s all become just one big rainbow-riddled blur of dazzle-scum.
And I’m sure they don’t work. DFS has been having a “prices slashed fake Bank Holiday” sale for the past decade, and do I give a toss? and have I skipped on down to purchase a sofa or a swivel chair? - no!
Damn them all to Hell, Dark Jesus. Nail their cheap coffins with thine belicose Hammer of Petty Judgement!
They used to snoot: “The ads are the best thing on TV, haw haw.” But not anymore. Now there are so many of the damn dirty w****s that it’s all become just one big rainbow-riddled blur of dazzle-scum.
And I’m sure they don’t work. DFS has been having a “prices slashed fake Bank Holiday” sale for the past decade, and do I give a toss? and have I skipped on down to purchase a sofa or a swivel chair? - no!
Damn them all to Hell, Dark Jesus. Nail their cheap coffins with thine belicose Hammer of Petty Judgement!
Page:
Sorry this reply took a while, I'll try to keep the quoting to a minimum.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Then again, I understand that Sky, for example, don't offer the sky
> sports channles on their own (though you can subscribe to other
> channels like this). Because the sports channels are most popular,
> they force people who want to watch them to subscribe to a package
> with a bunch of other channels included.
Yep, but the lowest channel basic package is still only just over the cost of the licence fee. There are some sports channels free though these are obviously not all that mainstream. Bare in mind that Sky did not do anything that the BBC/ITV had not been doing before with the sports coverage i.e. the highest bidder takes the programming. Sky found the money despite the massive initial overheads, whilst the BBC had the money and no such overheads. Remember Sky was running at a loss both in the initial stages of satellite and digital tv because they had to subsidise equipment, buy sat space etc, yet now they make a profit. There is so much sport now that again no normal terrestrial channel could carry it all and please everyone, you have to have a dediecated set of channels like Sky did, and you need advertising to fund it.
> So effectively the commercial world sometimes still finds itself
> using popular programs to 'subsidise' other ones, just much less
> effectively than another system would.
Not really less effectively, because the commercial program makers realise that the situation could change within days - take the X Files, initially stuck on a 10PM BBC 2 time slot, Sky took a risk and bought the new season 2 rights and stuck it on primetime - the X Files craze in the UK began from there, yet even when the BBC finally sorted out terrestrial rights it proceeded to stick the program in a less than primtime slot, cut into it with snooker, tennis etc and got nowhere near Sky's ratings despite being ad free and the whole nation being able to access BBC 2, unlike Sky One, which only somewhere like half a million could.
Even less popular programs can be used to good effect on commercial channels by sandwhiching them between popular ones - C5 is doing this right now with the various Law And Order/CSI's/Lyons Den/Shield programs. By contrast public funded shows have to be really shown to be of reasonable interest because of where the money for them comes, but the danger is that the organisation behind them, in this case the BBC, can use this reasoning to hide what is simply crap programming. I have never ever seen the BBC put poor ratings down to the program being bad, instead they simply say it was for a minority, limited interest group etc. there are over 60 million people in the UK, between them most interests are covered and the channel is free to air...
> Hmm, this could be constructed as standing for the non-commercialist
> argument - those channels with a popular political slant get
> sufficient financial resources (and also, as a consequence are more
> likely to draw in new viewers who may adopt the political
> standpoint). Meanwhile minority political positions could be stamped
> out on commercial, rather than philosophical, grounds.
It could, except as the BBC has demonstrated with aplomb, you cannot have politically neutral programming on many issues. The new director of the BBC in his initial report made the same comment, that the BBC had too often taken a politcally biased stance on certain issues and had not remained neutral as a publically funded service should have done. With commercial programs it does not matter, you simply watch another channel and who cares because you are not paying for that channel's programming.
> Then it's still judging a channel on political grounds, and
> effectively deciding that some (non commercially viable) can't be
> watched.
Except this proves untrue in the real world. Al Jazeera, CCTV9, Abu Dhabi, and many other news channels with political slants of some sort are all on digital - and I'd argue that in the UK you cannot get a less commercially viable channel than Al Jazeera, yet for a small fee and with advertising these channels make it, yet there is no such news channels which are publically funded. But to a minority, and other interested people, these are useful channels to have the option to access.
> On the point of bias in the news media generally though - is it
> really that people don't watch it 'on political grounds' - is looking
> for a more neutral viewpoint a political bias or a lack of it ?
Well I'd say looking for what the viewer defines as a neutral viewpoint is in itself a political bias because the idea of a neutral viewpoint is itself defined by the individual. Take the recent Manhunt furor - to some people a channel saying "Manhunt creates killer kid" would be being neutral, because those people believe that games can create killers. To others though such headlines screams "far right nutcase".
> While a lefty might not watch Fox, perhaps although they may find a
> left-wing channel more palletable, they would also reject it looking
> for something that really is neutral.
Problem is that true neutrality does not exist in news reporting, which is why any search for it is ultimately politically biased. There is no truth, only what you want to believe is truth. Even history is not truthful, but biased.
> (Not always true - see the sky sports point above)
> Hmm, but if you pay for what you want, plus everything else, and
> everyone else pays for what they want, plus everything else, then you
> can expect that overall people will subsidise each other, and it will
> cancel out. Thus you pay for all the programs, but you pay less for
> the specific ones you watch than you would if there weren't people
> subsidising them who didn't watch them.
The thing is that, for what you get, you're mainly paying for the technical cost of the service, not so much the content, because that's mostly ad funded. Some programming is less popular, like Sport, so has to be more subsidised, but the important point is that if you want the basic 50 channel package you are not paying to someone to watch FA Premier League. It's a fair system - whilst under the licence fee I might watch the odd film but nothing else, yet I've paid 120 odd for the privilege. How can that be fair for all??? Again the BBC undermines itself, because it pumps licence payer money into Digital only channels and programming.
> Hmm, the bbc do put a lot of money into researching and developing
> new forms of the media, don't they.
> I understand they funded a lot of the research and development of
> digital tv and radio technology - without which most of these
> commercial channels would be far more limited in audience, if they
> existed at all.
They certainly did their own research, but the digitial services/boxes were all foreign developed, other countries have had the tech/service much longer so there was only really specialised research to do. But again, what is the BBC doing putting money everyone paid into a service that is commercial and for a minority? The BBC's arguments are not logical at all.
> It's typically easier for non-commercial institutions to put money
> into long-term development than it is for commercial counterparts.
> Key is the ability to act freely from short-term profit targets. You
> have to be a pretty big, solid company to invest seriosuly in
> long-term research, and developing new 'markets'.
There is also the point that the non-commercial places have no shareholders or demand on them to produce results in a decent time. Commercial places only invest long term if there is a result to be aimed for and the progress of such projects can be checked. Even so, why is it that the commercial places regularly produce the more popular series, under the shorter time pressures and with the demand for profits, than the places under no such constraints. It's because they know they need to have quality programming.
> Yet when freedom of choice becomes subverted by addiction or
> cohersion, there's a stronger case for someone interveining.
> I accept that it's a bit of a stretch to apply this to tv programs
> (or perhaps not really so much for addiction, if the government plan
> to act on obesity..), it was moving more to the general left/right
> arguments there.
How can someone be coherced? Addicted? Yep it's a big big stretch. Obesity isn't the same argument because the condition costs the NHS billions now, and more in the future, as well as impacting the UK economy etc. Plus, research shows that not all obesity is simply from overeating, there are conditions which can make it occur far more easily in a person.
> But I figure there are strong arguments in favour of both public and
> commercial broadcast (as you'd expect where there's a degree of
> balance!).
> For that reason, I see the existence of both the bbc and commercial
> channels as important in serving all arguments.
I see why there is a BBC but I think if they are to continue to demand the licence fee and to continue with the big brother style adverts warning people about not paying, and if they will continue to squander public money on such things as last years Gilligan fiasco (a court case essentially begun because the BBC couldn't say 'sorry we got it wrong'), then they need to change what they are, because to me that is only serving a portion of the public.
I suspect that, should Labour stay in power next year, then the renewal of the BBC charter will see some changes made for the better, whether the BBC likes them or not.
> Heh, I'm stubbornly refusing to read those. My job agency had better
> find me some more work though, if I get too much time on my hands the
> boredom might drive me to it :^)
I'll never read them, far too much interesting stuff with me here I haven't had time to read.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Then again, I understand that Sky, for example, don't offer the sky
> sports channles on their own (though you can subscribe to other
> channels like this). Because the sports channels are most popular,
> they force people who want to watch them to subscribe to a package
> with a bunch of other channels included.
Yep, but the lowest channel basic package is still only just over the cost of the licence fee. There are some sports channels free though these are obviously not all that mainstream. Bare in mind that Sky did not do anything that the BBC/ITV had not been doing before with the sports coverage i.e. the highest bidder takes the programming. Sky found the money despite the massive initial overheads, whilst the BBC had the money and no such overheads. Remember Sky was running at a loss both in the initial stages of satellite and digital tv because they had to subsidise equipment, buy sat space etc, yet now they make a profit. There is so much sport now that again no normal terrestrial channel could carry it all and please everyone, you have to have a dediecated set of channels like Sky did, and you need advertising to fund it.
> So effectively the commercial world sometimes still finds itself
> using popular programs to 'subsidise' other ones, just much less
> effectively than another system would.
Not really less effectively, because the commercial program makers realise that the situation could change within days - take the X Files, initially stuck on a 10PM BBC 2 time slot, Sky took a risk and bought the new season 2 rights and stuck it on primetime - the X Files craze in the UK began from there, yet even when the BBC finally sorted out terrestrial rights it proceeded to stick the program in a less than primtime slot, cut into it with snooker, tennis etc and got nowhere near Sky's ratings despite being ad free and the whole nation being able to access BBC 2, unlike Sky One, which only somewhere like half a million could.
Even less popular programs can be used to good effect on commercial channels by sandwhiching them between popular ones - C5 is doing this right now with the various Law And Order/CSI's/Lyons Den/Shield programs. By contrast public funded shows have to be really shown to be of reasonable interest because of where the money for them comes, but the danger is that the organisation behind them, in this case the BBC, can use this reasoning to hide what is simply crap programming. I have never ever seen the BBC put poor ratings down to the program being bad, instead they simply say it was for a minority, limited interest group etc. there are over 60 million people in the UK, between them most interests are covered and the channel is free to air...
> Hmm, this could be constructed as standing for the non-commercialist
> argument - those channels with a popular political slant get
> sufficient financial resources (and also, as a consequence are more
> likely to draw in new viewers who may adopt the political
> standpoint). Meanwhile minority political positions could be stamped
> out on commercial, rather than philosophical, grounds.
It could, except as the BBC has demonstrated with aplomb, you cannot have politically neutral programming on many issues. The new director of the BBC in his initial report made the same comment, that the BBC had too often taken a politcally biased stance on certain issues and had not remained neutral as a publically funded service should have done. With commercial programs it does not matter, you simply watch another channel and who cares because you are not paying for that channel's programming.
> Then it's still judging a channel on political grounds, and
> effectively deciding that some (non commercially viable) can't be
> watched.
Except this proves untrue in the real world. Al Jazeera, CCTV9, Abu Dhabi, and many other news channels with political slants of some sort are all on digital - and I'd argue that in the UK you cannot get a less commercially viable channel than Al Jazeera, yet for a small fee and with advertising these channels make it, yet there is no such news channels which are publically funded. But to a minority, and other interested people, these are useful channels to have the option to access.
> On the point of bias in the news media generally though - is it
> really that people don't watch it 'on political grounds' - is looking
> for a more neutral viewpoint a political bias or a lack of it ?
Well I'd say looking for what the viewer defines as a neutral viewpoint is in itself a political bias because the idea of a neutral viewpoint is itself defined by the individual. Take the recent Manhunt furor - to some people a channel saying "Manhunt creates killer kid" would be being neutral, because those people believe that games can create killers. To others though such headlines screams "far right nutcase".
> While a lefty might not watch Fox, perhaps although they may find a
> left-wing channel more palletable, they would also reject it looking
> for something that really is neutral.
Problem is that true neutrality does not exist in news reporting, which is why any search for it is ultimately politically biased. There is no truth, only what you want to believe is truth. Even history is not truthful, but biased.
> (Not always true - see the sky sports point above)
> Hmm, but if you pay for what you want, plus everything else, and
> everyone else pays for what they want, plus everything else, then you
> can expect that overall people will subsidise each other, and it will
> cancel out. Thus you pay for all the programs, but you pay less for
> the specific ones you watch than you would if there weren't people
> subsidising them who didn't watch them.
The thing is that, for what you get, you're mainly paying for the technical cost of the service, not so much the content, because that's mostly ad funded. Some programming is less popular, like Sport, so has to be more subsidised, but the important point is that if you want the basic 50 channel package you are not paying to someone to watch FA Premier League. It's a fair system - whilst under the licence fee I might watch the odd film but nothing else, yet I've paid 120 odd for the privilege. How can that be fair for all??? Again the BBC undermines itself, because it pumps licence payer money into Digital only channels and programming.
> Hmm, the bbc do put a lot of money into researching and developing
> new forms of the media, don't they.
> I understand they funded a lot of the research and development of
> digital tv and radio technology - without which most of these
> commercial channels would be far more limited in audience, if they
> existed at all.
They certainly did their own research, but the digitial services/boxes were all foreign developed, other countries have had the tech/service much longer so there was only really specialised research to do. But again, what is the BBC doing putting money everyone paid into a service that is commercial and for a minority? The BBC's arguments are not logical at all.
> It's typically easier for non-commercial institutions to put money
> into long-term development than it is for commercial counterparts.
> Key is the ability to act freely from short-term profit targets. You
> have to be a pretty big, solid company to invest seriosuly in
> long-term research, and developing new 'markets'.
There is also the point that the non-commercial places have no shareholders or demand on them to produce results in a decent time. Commercial places only invest long term if there is a result to be aimed for and the progress of such projects can be checked. Even so, why is it that the commercial places regularly produce the more popular series, under the shorter time pressures and with the demand for profits, than the places under no such constraints. It's because they know they need to have quality programming.
> Yet when freedom of choice becomes subverted by addiction or
> cohersion, there's a stronger case for someone interveining.
> I accept that it's a bit of a stretch to apply this to tv programs
> (or perhaps not really so much for addiction, if the government plan
> to act on obesity..), it was moving more to the general left/right
> arguments there.
How can someone be coherced? Addicted? Yep it's a big big stretch. Obesity isn't the same argument because the condition costs the NHS billions now, and more in the future, as well as impacting the UK economy etc. Plus, research shows that not all obesity is simply from overeating, there are conditions which can make it occur far more easily in a person.
> But I figure there are strong arguments in favour of both public and
> commercial broadcast (as you'd expect where there's a degree of
> balance!).
> For that reason, I see the existence of both the bbc and commercial
> channels as important in serving all arguments.
I see why there is a BBC but I think if they are to continue to demand the licence fee and to continue with the big brother style adverts warning people about not paying, and if they will continue to squander public money on such things as last years Gilligan fiasco (a court case essentially begun because the BBC couldn't say 'sorry we got it wrong'), then they need to change what they are, because to me that is only serving a portion of the public.
I suspect that, should Labour stay in power next year, then the renewal of the BBC charter will see some changes made for the better, whether the BBC likes them or not.
> Heh, I'm stubbornly refusing to read those. My job agency had better
> find me some more work though, if I get too much time on my hands the
> boredom might drive me to it :^)
I'll never read them, far too much interesting stuff with me here I haven't had time to read.
Since 5:26pm yesterday I think.
Jebus, how long was I typing for? :^o
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> This is the traditional view, however digital satellite television
> has more minority programming, indeed channels, than the publically
> funded BBC could ever hope for. It can offer it because it broadcasts
> across national boundaries, thus increasin the potential user base.
Ah, good point.
I suppose then the amount of funding can still place limitations on a program, depending on how much is deemed 'enough'.. but it should drastically reduce the problem nontheless, certainly in the tv context.
Then again, I understand that Sky, for example, don't offer the sky sports channles on their own (though you can subscribe to other channels like this). Because the sports channels are most popular, they force people who want to watch them to subscribe to a package with a bunch of other channels included.
So effectively the commercial world sometimes still finds itself using popular programs to 'subsidise' other ones, just much less effectively than another system would.
> Yep. To give a more
> personal example, how many people on these forums wouldn't watch Fox
> News if they were paid to? Probably a lot, but I watch it regularly.
> Odds are if you don't want to watch it it is because of how they
> report, because they do have a bias. So you're judging the channel on
> political grounds - is that a good basis for regulating what can be
> watched?
Hmm, this could be constructed as standing for the non-commercialist argument - those channels with a popular political slant get sufficient financial resources (and also, as a consequence are more likely to draw in new viewers who may adopt the political standpoint). Meanwhile minority political positions could be stamped out on commercial, rather than philosophical, grounds.
Then it's still judging a channel on political grounds, and effectively deciding that some (non commercially viable) can't be watched.
It seems somewhat akin to the idea of controlling election campaign funds to prevent a party 'buying' their way to power. As well as to stop commercial bodies buying political influence through campaign fund donations.
Then there's the political ideology that argues a just system of government is for each party / policy group to rule in turn, as opposed to 'majority rule'.
Thus every individual gets to live under their preferred regime, and must also live under the others.
Unlike majority rule, every individual gets a more equal ride, but the overall amount of people living under a political system they oppose is greater.
It's kind of an equality of results, above equality of opportunity.
(Clearly though, it's hard to imagine a way to practically implicate this system, and even harder to imagine anyone actually trying to put it in place!)
On the point of bias in the news media generally though - is it really that people don't watch it 'on political grounds' - is looking for a more neutral viewpoint a political bias or a lack of it ?
While a lefty might not watch Fox, perhaps although they may find a left-wing channel more palletable, they would also reject it looking for something that really is neutral.
I guess it depends on whether you consider 'neutral' to be genuinely netural, or just an intermediate form of political bias.
> These channels are commercially viable and, more importantly, on
> digital satellite you only pay for what you want.
(Not always true - see the sky sports point above)
Hmm, but if you pay for what you want, plus everything else, and everyone else pays for what they want, plus everything else, then you can expect that overall people will subsidise each other, and it will cancel out. Thus you pay for all the programs, but you pay less for the specific ones you watch than you would if there weren't people subsidising them who didn't watch them.
> The price of the
> license fee buys more variety than what the BBC provides. As it is
> the BBC's argument is undermined because they spent large sums of
> money on their new digital channels, which only a minority of people
> can even see, and then proceeded to spend large sums on programming
> for these channels which licence payers only got several months
> later. The majority had paid for the minority to see it first.
Hmm, the bbc do put a lot of money into researching and developing new forms of the media, don't they.
I understand they funded a lot of the research and development of digital tv and radio technology - without which most of these commercial channels would be far more limited in audience, if they existed at all.
It's typically easier for non-commercial institutions to put money into long-term development than it is for commercial counterparts.
Key is the ability to act freely from short-term profit targets. You have to be a pretty big, solid company to invest seriosuly in long-term research, and developing new 'markets'.
Yet its important that someone does it.
> True, but it's freedom of choice isn't it? Just because you and I
> despair at the willingness of so many to watch such drivel does not
> mean that those who do wish to watch it should not. The popularity,
> the viewing figures, ensure these programs survive and flourish,
> don't they? big Brother's future is in question because the ratings
> are falling to all time lows. Fact is some people do genuinely want
> to watch such programs.
Yet when freedom of choice becomes subverted by addiction or cohersion, there's a stronger case for someone interveining.
I accept that it's a bit of a stretch to apply this to tv programs (or perhaps not really so much for addiction, if the government plan to act on obesity..), it was moving more to the general left/right arguments there.
> This is the essential difference in left/right ideology. Left
> ideology is essentially one of 'big' government overseeing many
> aspects of life, whilst right ideology is of 'small' government which
> focuses on the essentials and only inteferes elsewhere when it
> absolute must.
> I don't believe government should dictate to a large degree what
> people do in their lives, especially their leisure time. Certainly we
> need some controls over the media, but these exist in the BBFC and
> various other agencies. The sheer differences in what people like and
> enjoy make such an exercise, IMO, futile and condescending.
> Put it like this, do you need to be told what you can/cannot
> watch on tv at the moment? I doubt it.
The difference betweeen left and right, and ultimately what a government 'should be'.. Hmm, there are a few different contrasts used, in addition to the big/small government one (though that's Howard's current flavour of the month): Rights of the individual vs Freedoms of the individual, 'Safety net' of public assistance vs Not having to provide one for anyone else, Collectivism vs Individualism, Compassion vs Self interest, stuff like that.
I wonder, which of these is/are the main fundamental ideologies, and which are derived from those fundamental attitudes...
Everyone accepts some degree of balance of course. It gets more complicated when you question which areas government should be involved in, as well as the extent to which they should act in those areas...
But I figure there are strong arguments in favour of both public and commercial broadcast (as you'd expect where there's a degree of balance!).
For that reason, I see the existence of both the bbc and commercial channels as important in serving all arguments.
But adverts still get on my t*ts :^D
> > Am I getting a bit carried away? :^)
>
> Nope, this is one of the more interesting things I've read in a while
> on the forums, beats scores of SSC things.
Heh, I'm stubbornly refusing to read those. My job agency had better find me some more work though, if I get too much time on my hands the boredom might drive me to it :^)
> This is the traditional view, however digital satellite television
> has more minority programming, indeed channels, than the publically
> funded BBC could ever hope for. It can offer it because it broadcasts
> across national boundaries, thus increasin the potential user base.
Ah, good point.
I suppose then the amount of funding can still place limitations on a program, depending on how much is deemed 'enough'.. but it should drastically reduce the problem nontheless, certainly in the tv context.
Then again, I understand that Sky, for example, don't offer the sky sports channles on their own (though you can subscribe to other channels like this). Because the sports channels are most popular, they force people who want to watch them to subscribe to a package with a bunch of other channels included.
So effectively the commercial world sometimes still finds itself using popular programs to 'subsidise' other ones, just much less effectively than another system would.
> Yep. To give a more
> personal example, how many people on these forums wouldn't watch Fox
> News if they were paid to? Probably a lot, but I watch it regularly.
> Odds are if you don't want to watch it it is because of how they
> report, because they do have a bias. So you're judging the channel on
> political grounds - is that a good basis for regulating what can be
> watched?
Hmm, this could be constructed as standing for the non-commercialist argument - those channels with a popular political slant get sufficient financial resources (and also, as a consequence are more likely to draw in new viewers who may adopt the political standpoint). Meanwhile minority political positions could be stamped out on commercial, rather than philosophical, grounds.
Then it's still judging a channel on political grounds, and effectively deciding that some (non commercially viable) can't be watched.
It seems somewhat akin to the idea of controlling election campaign funds to prevent a party 'buying' their way to power. As well as to stop commercial bodies buying political influence through campaign fund donations.
Then there's the political ideology that argues a just system of government is for each party / policy group to rule in turn, as opposed to 'majority rule'.
Thus every individual gets to live under their preferred regime, and must also live under the others.
Unlike majority rule, every individual gets a more equal ride, but the overall amount of people living under a political system they oppose is greater.
It's kind of an equality of results, above equality of opportunity.
(Clearly though, it's hard to imagine a way to practically implicate this system, and even harder to imagine anyone actually trying to put it in place!)
On the point of bias in the news media generally though - is it really that people don't watch it 'on political grounds' - is looking for a more neutral viewpoint a political bias or a lack of it ?
While a lefty might not watch Fox, perhaps although they may find a left-wing channel more palletable, they would also reject it looking for something that really is neutral.
I guess it depends on whether you consider 'neutral' to be genuinely netural, or just an intermediate form of political bias.
> These channels are commercially viable and, more importantly, on
> digital satellite you only pay for what you want.
(Not always true - see the sky sports point above)
Hmm, but if you pay for what you want, plus everything else, and everyone else pays for what they want, plus everything else, then you can expect that overall people will subsidise each other, and it will cancel out. Thus you pay for all the programs, but you pay less for the specific ones you watch than you would if there weren't people subsidising them who didn't watch them.
> The price of the
> license fee buys more variety than what the BBC provides. As it is
> the BBC's argument is undermined because they spent large sums of
> money on their new digital channels, which only a minority of people
> can even see, and then proceeded to spend large sums on programming
> for these channels which licence payers only got several months
> later. The majority had paid for the minority to see it first.
Hmm, the bbc do put a lot of money into researching and developing new forms of the media, don't they.
I understand they funded a lot of the research and development of digital tv and radio technology - without which most of these commercial channels would be far more limited in audience, if they existed at all.
It's typically easier for non-commercial institutions to put money into long-term development than it is for commercial counterparts.
Key is the ability to act freely from short-term profit targets. You have to be a pretty big, solid company to invest seriosuly in long-term research, and developing new 'markets'.
Yet its important that someone does it.
> True, but it's freedom of choice isn't it? Just because you and I
> despair at the willingness of so many to watch such drivel does not
> mean that those who do wish to watch it should not. The popularity,
> the viewing figures, ensure these programs survive and flourish,
> don't they? big Brother's future is in question because the ratings
> are falling to all time lows. Fact is some people do genuinely want
> to watch such programs.
Yet when freedom of choice becomes subverted by addiction or cohersion, there's a stronger case for someone interveining.
I accept that it's a bit of a stretch to apply this to tv programs (or perhaps not really so much for addiction, if the government plan to act on obesity..), it was moving more to the general left/right arguments there.
> This is the essential difference in left/right ideology. Left
> ideology is essentially one of 'big' government overseeing many
> aspects of life, whilst right ideology is of 'small' government which
> focuses on the essentials and only inteferes elsewhere when it
> absolute must.
> I don't believe government should dictate to a large degree what
> people do in their lives, especially their leisure time. Certainly we
> need some controls over the media, but these exist in the BBFC and
> various other agencies. The sheer differences in what people like and
> enjoy make such an exercise, IMO, futile and condescending.
> Put it like this, do you need to be told what you can/cannot
> watch on tv at the moment? I doubt it.
The difference betweeen left and right, and ultimately what a government 'should be'.. Hmm, there are a few different contrasts used, in addition to the big/small government one (though that's Howard's current flavour of the month): Rights of the individual vs Freedoms of the individual, 'Safety net' of public assistance vs Not having to provide one for anyone else, Collectivism vs Individualism, Compassion vs Self interest, stuff like that.
I wonder, which of these is/are the main fundamental ideologies, and which are derived from those fundamental attitudes...
Everyone accepts some degree of balance of course. It gets more complicated when you question which areas government should be involved in, as well as the extent to which they should act in those areas...
But I figure there are strong arguments in favour of both public and commercial broadcast (as you'd expect where there's a degree of balance!).
For that reason, I see the existence of both the bbc and commercial channels as important in serving all arguments.
But adverts still get on my t*ts :^D
> > Am I getting a bit carried away? :^)
>
> Nope, this is one of the more interesting things I've read in a while
> on the forums, beats scores of SSC things.
Heh, I'm stubbornly refusing to read those. My job agency had better find me some more work though, if I get too much time on my hands the boredom might drive me to it :^)
lol I dread to think what people abroad who see Eastenders and haven't been to the UK before must think this place is like.
Now that's a sentence with many interpretations.
Now that's a sentence with many interpretations.
I'd like to see an ad for cyanide during Eastenders, with big flashing text that says:
THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS
YOU MIGHT AS WELL END IT
THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS
YOU MIGHT AS WELL END IT
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> I'd argue pretty much everyone is in a minority in some of their
> interests (and thus tv viewing).
> The Tory 'commerce will take care of it' principle puts loads of
> money into shows lots of people will watch, most of which will be
> private profit, but it still leaves virtually everybody with their
> specific minority interests, each of which is not alone commercially
> viable enough for people to bother making a good effort of it.
> A more socialist attitude would aspire to put enough money into the
> popular shows to give quality, and still spread some of the left over
> money into less commercially viable shows, so that everybody gets to
> enjoy their own minority interest too. So in theory it should be
> better for everyone.
> The only real downside is that such a system doesn't root out the
> incompetent with quite the same vigour.
This is the traditional view, however digital satellite television has more minority programming, indeed channels, than the publically funded BBC could ever hope for. It can offer it because it broadcasts across national boundaries, thus increasin the potential user base. You want programming entirely in arabic? It's there? Indian programs? Yep, DIY programmes? Yep, classical music? Yep. To give a more personal example, how many people on these forums wouldn't watch Fox News if they were paid to? Probably a lot, but I watch it regularly. Odds are if you don't want to watch it it is because of how they report, because they do have a bias. So you're judging the channel on political grounds - is that a good basis for regulating what can be watched?
These channels are commercially viable and, more importantly, on digital satellite you only pay for what you want. The price of the license fee buys more variety than what the BBC provides. As it is the BBC's argument is undermined because they spent large sums of money on their new digital channels, which only a minority of people can even see, and then proceeded to spend large sums on programming for these channels which licence payers only got several months later. The majority had paid for the minority to see it first.
The BBC cannot hope to please so many interest groups with the channels it has, and, as explained above, nearly any minority interest show can work if you can get it to a bigger potential audience. In all of this advertising is essential because it brings in revenue, allowing more and more programming to be created. Thus, the emphasis is to create programing to appeal to a channel's viewers in order to make the advertising space appeal to advertisers, and generate revenue. Publically funded programming is no more able to tolerate low viewer numbers than advertising funded programmming.
> Also, I've noticed a lot of shows seem to trade in misery these days
> - [random things] from hell, stuff like that - everything that seeks
> to get under the audience's skin in order to get them hooked, often
> making them unhappy in the process, rather than actually providing
> programs people genuinely want to watch.
True, but it's freedom of choice isn't it? Just because you and I despair at the willingness of so many to watch such drivel does not mean that those who do wish to watch it should not. The popularity, the viewing figures, ensure these programs survive and flourish, don't they? big Brother's future is in question because the ratings are falling to all time lows. Fact is some people do genuinely want to watch such programs.
> I suppose you could say it's up to everyone to choose for themself if
> they want to watch crap tv that makes them miserable, but I'd argue
> that a government that watches it happen on any serious scale and
> does nothing, or even encourages it, is at best negligent.
> Paternalistic? Only if you take the view that a government has no
> place serving its people by trying to protect them.
> The typical Tory seems to have had a lifestyle where they've never
> needed such assistance, it seems. Which would suggest that their
> policies are ultimately based in ignorance.
This is the essential difference in left/right ideology. Left ideology is essentially one of 'big' government overseeing many aspects of life, whilst right ideology is of 'small' government which focuses on the essentials and only inteferes elsewhere when it absolute must.
Who is to say that the left or right is even, for want of a better word, right? What makes your values, that would see such programs disappear, any better than those of the viewers who watch that program? You see the program as beneath you, and those who watch it as being somehow lesser, or disadvantaged, compared to you.
I don't believe government should dictate to a large degree what people do in their lives, especially their leisure time. Certainly we need some controls over the media, but these exist in the BBFC and various other agencies. The sheer differences in what people like and enjoy make such an exercise, IMO, futile and condescending.
Put it like this, do you need to be told what you can/cannot watch on tv at the moment? I doubt it.
> Am I getting a bit carried away? :^)
Nope, this is one of the more interesting things I've read in a while on the forums, beats scores of SSC things.
> I'd argue pretty much everyone is in a minority in some of their
> interests (and thus tv viewing).
> The Tory 'commerce will take care of it' principle puts loads of
> money into shows lots of people will watch, most of which will be
> private profit, but it still leaves virtually everybody with their
> specific minority interests, each of which is not alone commercially
> viable enough for people to bother making a good effort of it.
> A more socialist attitude would aspire to put enough money into the
> popular shows to give quality, and still spread some of the left over
> money into less commercially viable shows, so that everybody gets to
> enjoy their own minority interest too. So in theory it should be
> better for everyone.
> The only real downside is that such a system doesn't root out the
> incompetent with quite the same vigour.
This is the traditional view, however digital satellite television has more minority programming, indeed channels, than the publically funded BBC could ever hope for. It can offer it because it broadcasts across national boundaries, thus increasin the potential user base. You want programming entirely in arabic? It's there? Indian programs? Yep, DIY programmes? Yep, classical music? Yep. To give a more personal example, how many people on these forums wouldn't watch Fox News if they were paid to? Probably a lot, but I watch it regularly. Odds are if you don't want to watch it it is because of how they report, because they do have a bias. So you're judging the channel on political grounds - is that a good basis for regulating what can be watched?
These channels are commercially viable and, more importantly, on digital satellite you only pay for what you want. The price of the license fee buys more variety than what the BBC provides. As it is the BBC's argument is undermined because they spent large sums of money on their new digital channels, which only a minority of people can even see, and then proceeded to spend large sums on programming for these channels which licence payers only got several months later. The majority had paid for the minority to see it first.
The BBC cannot hope to please so many interest groups with the channels it has, and, as explained above, nearly any minority interest show can work if you can get it to a bigger potential audience. In all of this advertising is essential because it brings in revenue, allowing more and more programming to be created. Thus, the emphasis is to create programing to appeal to a channel's viewers in order to make the advertising space appeal to advertisers, and generate revenue. Publically funded programming is no more able to tolerate low viewer numbers than advertising funded programmming.
> Also, I've noticed a lot of shows seem to trade in misery these days
> - [random things] from hell, stuff like that - everything that seeks
> to get under the audience's skin in order to get them hooked, often
> making them unhappy in the process, rather than actually providing
> programs people genuinely want to watch.
True, but it's freedom of choice isn't it? Just because you and I despair at the willingness of so many to watch such drivel does not mean that those who do wish to watch it should not. The popularity, the viewing figures, ensure these programs survive and flourish, don't they? big Brother's future is in question because the ratings are falling to all time lows. Fact is some people do genuinely want to watch such programs.
> I suppose you could say it's up to everyone to choose for themself if
> they want to watch crap tv that makes them miserable, but I'd argue
> that a government that watches it happen on any serious scale and
> does nothing, or even encourages it, is at best negligent.
> Paternalistic? Only if you take the view that a government has no
> place serving its people by trying to protect them.
> The typical Tory seems to have had a lifestyle where they've never
> needed such assistance, it seems. Which would suggest that their
> policies are ultimately based in ignorance.
This is the essential difference in left/right ideology. Left ideology is essentially one of 'big' government overseeing many aspects of life, whilst right ideology is of 'small' government which focuses on the essentials and only inteferes elsewhere when it absolute must.
Who is to say that the left or right is even, for want of a better word, right? What makes your values, that would see such programs disappear, any better than those of the viewers who watch that program? You see the program as beneath you, and those who watch it as being somehow lesser, or disadvantaged, compared to you.
I don't believe government should dictate to a large degree what people do in their lives, especially their leisure time. Certainly we need some controls over the media, but these exist in the BBFC and various other agencies. The sheer differences in what people like and enjoy make such an exercise, IMO, futile and condescending.
Put it like this, do you need to be told what you can/cannot watch on tv at the moment? I doubt it.
> Am I getting a bit carried away? :^)
Nope, this is one of the more interesting things I've read in a while on the forums, beats scores of SSC things.
To be honest, I was on my was at 'reply quoting..'
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Am I getting a bit carried away? :^)
Yup, I drifted off at 'Also, I've noticed..'
:-)
> Am I getting a bit carried away? :^)
Yup, I drifted off at 'Also, I've noticed..'
:-)
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> In effect ads are a way of ensuring some kind of quality - ad makers
> want to put their ads where the viewers will see them - to get the
> viewers you need decent programs, or failing that at least one that
> many will watch.Why do you think Sky went all out to get 24 season 3,
> and secure season 4? Because with the ratings they have the ad time
> is going to before filming of season 4 even finishes.
Heh, there's a whole can of worms - do you define decent programs as the ones 'many will watch'?
I'd argue pretty much everyone is in a minority in some of their interests (and thus tv viewing).
The Tory 'commerce will take care of it' principle puts loads of money into shows lots of people will watch, most of which will be private profit, but it still leaves virtually everybody with their specific minority interests, each of which is not alone commercially viable enough for people to bother making a good effort of it.
A more socialist attitude would aspire to put enough money into the popular shows to give quality, and still spread some of the left over money into less commercially viable shows, so that everybody gets to enjoy their own minority interest too. So in theory it should be better for everyone.
The only real downside is that such a system doesn't root out the incompetent with quite the same vigour.
Also, I've noticed a lot of shows seem to trade in misery these days - [random things] from hell, stuff like that - everything that seeks to get under the audience's skin in order to get them hooked, often making them unhappy in the process, rather than actually providing programs people genuinely want to watch.
I suppose you could say it's up to everyone to choose for themself if they want to watch crap tv that makes them miserable, but I'd argue that a government that watches it happen on any serious scale and does nothing, or even encourages it, is at best negligent.
Paternalistic? Only if you take the view that a government has no place serving its people by trying to protect them.
The typical Tory seems to have had a lifestyle where they've never needed such assistance, it seems. Which would suggest that their policies are ultimately based in ignorance.
Am I getting a bit carried away? :^)
> In effect ads are a way of ensuring some kind of quality - ad makers
> want to put their ads where the viewers will see them - to get the
> viewers you need decent programs, or failing that at least one that
> many will watch.Why do you think Sky went all out to get 24 season 3,
> and secure season 4? Because with the ratings they have the ad time
> is going to before filming of season 4 even finishes.
Heh, there's a whole can of worms - do you define decent programs as the ones 'many will watch'?
I'd argue pretty much everyone is in a minority in some of their interests (and thus tv viewing).
The Tory 'commerce will take care of it' principle puts loads of money into shows lots of people will watch, most of which will be private profit, but it still leaves virtually everybody with their specific minority interests, each of which is not alone commercially viable enough for people to bother making a good effort of it.
A more socialist attitude would aspire to put enough money into the popular shows to give quality, and still spread some of the left over money into less commercially viable shows, so that everybody gets to enjoy their own minority interest too. So in theory it should be better for everyone.
The only real downside is that such a system doesn't root out the incompetent with quite the same vigour.
Also, I've noticed a lot of shows seem to trade in misery these days - [random things] from hell, stuff like that - everything that seeks to get under the audience's skin in order to get them hooked, often making them unhappy in the process, rather than actually providing programs people genuinely want to watch.
I suppose you could say it's up to everyone to choose for themself if they want to watch crap tv that makes them miserable, but I'd argue that a government that watches it happen on any serious scale and does nothing, or even encourages it, is at best negligent.
Paternalistic? Only if you take the view that a government has no place serving its people by trying to protect them.
The typical Tory seems to have had a lifestyle where they've never needed such assistance, it seems. Which would suggest that their policies are ultimately based in ignorance.
Am I getting a bit carried away? :^)
Page: