|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 11, 2017 23:38:20 GMT
Details are still sketchy on this, but it looks like OFCOM are reducing the number of obligations on the BBC with regards to public service broadcasting. According to the Telegraph: "The upshot ... is that BBC Radio 4 will no longer be obliged to broadcast religious services, science shows or arts programming, Rules requiring regular coverage of consumer affairs, education, health, business, farming and disability are due to be abandoned." www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/09/11/bbc-must-remember-mission/If Radio 4 is no longer obliged to give the arts the relatively small amount of coverage it gets at the moment, what will be left? The point of the remit is surely to ensure that things that would not have a home on a commercial station can still be found on the BBC. Not impressed with OFCOM and the BBC on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 5:36:24 GMT
I'm more concerned with the lack of obligation to provide science broadcasting. People get little enough exposure to science as it is, and already most of it treats science as something where truth is up for debate. TV is particularly bad, where coverage seems to be aiming for "dramatic" rather than "interesting", every show is filled with moody shots of people staring into the distance, and graphics are designed for maximum visual appeal even if that means sacrificing all informative representation. (I remember when Horizon was a science programme. Now it seems to be a place where directors gain experience before going off to make the cinematic masterpiece they've always believed was inside them if only they could get the world to pay attention.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 5:48:23 GMT
Seems very odd. Would have thought things like "religious services, science shows or arts programming" are pretty much the point of Radio 4 (plus of course The Archers and unfunny 6:30 comedy)
|
|
183 posts
|
Post by bee on Sept 12, 2017 6:00:59 GMT
Not sure what would be left if they took all that stuff away. A 24-hour news channel? |
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Sept 12, 2017 6:54:33 GMT
It's not all bad news - maybe they can now scrap Farming Today; why they are allowed the luxury of a daily 15 mins baffles me. Also if they aren't obliged to do religious services they might now think of scraping the awful Thought for the Day.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 12, 2017 6:59:42 GMT
Politically-inspired chipping away at the BBC's purpose and remit = part of the long-term plan to get rid of it as a public service broadcaster that competes with the commercial media companies.
This sort of thing has been on the cards for a long time. The changes to oversight and funding have been setting it up. It's just sad that it's going to happen without a fight - before people know it we'll be left with a hollowed-out BBC that gets sold off piecemeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 7:14:57 GMT
Just because they're no longer obliged to do these things doesn't mean they'll automatically stop them all. Maybe some of the smaller and less popular things will drop off (maybe they've been waiting for this opportunity to kill a few things) but it's worth waiting to see what actually happens rather than imagining all the worst that could. There'll be time to kick up a fuss directly to the BBC later when we know what we're kicking up a fuss about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 8:10:36 GMT
Farming Today; why they are allowed the luxury of a daily 15 mins baffles me. "They"? Farming Today reports "the latest news about food, farming and the countryside". Over 99% of the population consumes food, so the target audience is quite an inclusive "they". And the programme's length is 13 minutes. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Sept 12, 2017 8:30:35 GMT
I hope they don't get rid of Thought for the Day otherwise I'd never be forced to get up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 12, 2017 8:32:23 GMT
Politically-inspired chipping away at the BBC's purpose and remit = part of the long-term plan to get rid of it as a public service broadcaster that competes with the commercial media companies. OFCOM is independent of the government, there has been little evidence that OFCOM has ever pursued a Conservative inspired agenda - quite the opposite in fact with their current reluctance to approve the Murdoch takeover of Sky. This move is far more likely to have been initiated by the BBC themselves (and their ex-staff on OFCOM) who want to indulge in more exciting commercial ventures. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Sept 12, 2017 8:59:14 GMT
Once upon a time, when I was Young.
ITV had high Quality Drama like Brideshead and every week The South Bank Show.
Channel 4 showed complete Operas, had Documentaries and commissioned real feature films
Capitol Radio had classical programs and a great Sunday night featuring Jazz. They even sponsored and broadcast Wynton Marsalis's first London concert at TFH. And Sinatra at The Docklands Arena.
And the BBC had ....(fill in your own blanks)
The more channels we get, the more they seem the same and the less there is to watch.
The BBC has lost its identity, partly because it's become far too large.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 9:21:54 GMT
This move is far more likely to have been initiated by the BBC themselves (and their ex-staff on OFCOM) It says as much in that Telegraph article. The BBC petitioned OFCOM for a relaxation of the rules. |
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Sept 12, 2017 9:55:25 GMT
Farming Today; why they are allowed the luxury of a daily 15 mins baffles me. "They"? Farming Today reports "the latest news about food, farming and the countryside". Over 99% of the population consumes food, so the target audience is quite an inclusive "they". And the programme's length is 13 minutes. How fabulously pedantic. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 12, 2017 10:26:21 GMT
This move is far more likely to have been initiated by the BBC themselves (and their ex-staff on OFCOM) It says as much in that Telegraph article. The BBC petitioned OFCOM for a relaxation of the rules. Note to self: read article before commenting. Makes you look less like a tit. (Although the devaluation and break-up of the BBC is a long-term goal still.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 11:03:10 GMT
(Although the devaluation and break-up of the BBC is a long-term goal still.) A long-term goal of whom? Of Ofcom? Of the BBC? Of you? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 11:12:22 GMT
Well just so long as they don't get rid of Tomasz Schafernaker then they can do what they like.  |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 12, 2017 11:20:31 GMT
(Although the devaluation and break-up of the BBC is a long-term goal still.) A long-term goal of whom? Of Ofcom? Of the BBC? Of you? Well not me, obvs, and not the BBC! But you'd have to be pretty blind not to see the way the political winds have been blowing in the long-term - influenced hugely by Murdoch, and cheered on by the BBCs other commercial rivals. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 11:22:39 GMT
Which political winds?
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Sept 12, 2017 11:29:34 GMT
I'm more concerned with the lack of obligation to provide science broadcasting. People get little enough exposure to science as it is, and already most of it treats science as something where truth is up for debate. TV is particularly bad, where coverage seems to be aiming for "dramatic" rather than "interesting", every show is filled with moody shots of people staring into the distance, and graphics are designed for maximum visual appeal even if that means sacrificing all informative representation. (I remember when Horizon was a science programme. Now it seems to be a place where directors gain experience before going off to make the cinematic masterpiece they've always believed was inside them if only they could get the world to pay attention.) I'm completely with you on all this. One of my most formative TV moments was the 1978 Horizon in which they dismantled an increasingly red-faced Erich von Dainiken regarding his ancient astronauts "theories". Up until the 1990s Horizon remained a compelling science documentary series. Then, in common with most factual (and certainly science) output, it became shallow, superficial and style-obsessed. Now all factual programmes follow a rigid formula aiming for as you say drama. There has to be a lengthy introduction telling you all the stuff you're going to see in the programme anyway, including the obligatory "We'll be taking you... on a journey" and yes the staring-into-the-distance nonsense plus non-stop music, and every whizzy graphic accompanied by whooshing noises. I chanced the volcano documentary on BBC4 last night and it had all of this, and of course the usual delivery that sounds like they're addressing primary school children. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 12, 2017 11:44:58 GMT
A long-term goal of whom? Of Ofcom? Of the BBC? Of you? Well not me, obvs, and not the BBC! But you'd have to be pretty blind not to see the way the political winds have been blowing in the long-term - influenced hugely by Murdoch, and cheered on by the BBCs other commercial rivals. If you'd read my previous post you'd have seen my comment that OFCOM are currently obstructing Murdoch's takeover of Sky so how does that fit with your conspiracy theory ? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Sept 12, 2017 11:45:21 GMT
Politically-inspired chipping away at the BBC's purpose and remit = part of the long-term plan to get rid of it as a public service broadcaster that competes with the commercial media companies. This sort of thing has been on the cards for a long time. The changes to oversight and funding have been setting it up. It's just sad that it's going to happen without a fight - before people know it we'll be left with a hollowed-out BBC that gets sold off piecemeal. Dear Kathryn do you think you could PM a copy of that "long-term plan"? Whilst your at it, could you help me further? My mate Julian Assange has asked me if I can get him a copy of the secret plan to sell off the NHS. Apparently even he's never actually seen it. I'm assuming you have both? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 12:06:30 GMT
Gosh, aren't we lucky to be on a discussion board with such a searingly incisive wit.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 12:32:55 GMT
A bit like a forum post saying "there's a long-term plan" and not substantiating it or even saying whose plan it is!
I'd genuinely be interested to read about this long-term plan so we can all discuss it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 12, 2017 12:49:55 GMT
A bit like a forum post saying "there's a long-term plan" and not substantiating it or even saying whose plan it is! I'd genuinely be interested to read about this long-term plan so we can all discuss it. Well apparently the long term plan includes preserving the license fee funding of the BBC until at least December 2027 which is what the last Conservative government agreed to - an odd way to go about undermining the BBC but there you are. |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 12, 2017 12:56:21 GMT
Well just so long as they don't get rid of Tomasz Schafernaker then they can do what they like. Have you seen the video of him in Florida at the moment - he's soaking wet in the middle of a gale and it looks like he doesn't have any trousers on! I think you'd like it! |
|
