Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

jamesomalley.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#161

Post by ChrisKnott »

908B64B197 wrote: post #138
ChrisKnott wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainly (70%) from a TV licence, the rest from selling their IP to other markets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_...

> Mainly (70%) from a TV licence Whose existence is voted and that is managed by... the Government?

It's not managed by the government, it's a Royal Charter.

In the UK, parliament is sovereign and can ultimately do anything so they could vote to change this arrangement. This is the case with anything. Parliament could vote to execute left handers.

The fact remains, what you said is false;

1. The BBC are not on the government's payroll

2. They regularly hold the government to account

Your criticism is nonsense Libertarian speculation that is refuted by the real world.

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#162

Post by denton-scratch »

jbarrs wrote: post #101
zimpenfish wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while ITV were pumping out shockingly poor resolution low frame rate content that was barely watchable. Don't forget the adverts and the several occasions when their streaming servers just plain couldn't be arsed to deliver any data to people during important games.

This is depressingly true. Whenever ITV were hosting the match, I generally just resigned myself to not being able to watch it. Besides that, when it did work, the commentary was absolutely atrocious and did nothing but state the obvious. The BBC's coverage on iPlayer was superb, and I'll admit before I paid for any streaming service I used to comb through iPlayer the same way I comb through Netflix now.

> the commentary was absolutely atrocious and did nothing but state the obvious.

I've always assumed that how sports fans like their commentaries - vacuous, uninformative and shouty. If fans wanted intelligent commentary, surely broadcasters would hire intelligent commentators, rather than ineloquent retired sports stars?

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#163

Post by vmilner »

denton-scratch wrote: post #162
jbarrs wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is depressingly true. Whenever ITV were hosting the match, I generally just resigned myself to not being able to watch it. Besides that, when it did work, the commentary was absolutely atrocious and did nothing but state the obvious. The BBC's coverage on iPlayer was superb, and I'll admit before I paid for any streaming service I used to comb through iPlayer the same way I comb through Netflix now.

> the commentary was absolutely atrocious and did nothing but state the obvious. I've always assumed that how sports fans like their commentaries - vacuous, uninformative and shouty. If fans wanted intelligent commentary, surely broadcasters would hire intelligent commentators, rather than ineloquent retired sports stars?

Thankfully for track and field athletics on the BBC we have former world mile record holder Steve Cram, who's the epitome of an intelligent commentator.

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#164

Post by hfkwnfb »

nostromo wrote: post #150
kmeisthax wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it even possible to cover Brexit in a "neutral" way that everyone likes?

They were so anti-Brexit, it got a bit ridiculous. One example: "Brexit threat to sandwiches" https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44960293 I am happy to report that there are still sandwiches in the UK.

This article is from after the brexit vote about what might have happened in the event of a no deal brexit. We are currently in a grace period on import checks, and this week we've seen warnings from food suppliers about what will happen after the grace period [1]. This shows it wasn't "ridiculous".

Frankly I think the BBC did pretty well. Political parties didn't draw clear lines at first, and covering the full spectrum of opinions was probably impossible. Overall Farage got more airtime than his MP count would suggest was necessary, and he was sort of balanced by the Lib Dems.

Even with a deal sandwiches have been confiscated as a result of brexit, so in some way there really has been a threat to sandwiches [2].

[1] - https://news.sky.com/story/m-s-warns-of-price-pressure-and-l...

[2] - https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/brexit-...

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#165

Post by iso1210 »

eynsham wrote: post #153
native_samples wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between aspiration and execution. Every TV channel will claim they aspire to inform, educate and be diverse. No TV channel in history has said their goal is to misinform, dumb down and present homogenous uniformity day after day. The BBC is clearly failing at its goals. Most of the UK population no longer trusts its news output; that's huge and a new phenomenon, although of course it's been a lon…

> The BBC is clearly failing at its goals. Well, the Proms this year were bound to be disappointing, but I’m sure matters will improve next year. And the cricket commentary is still perfectly sound. > Most of the UK population no longer trusts its news output This is simply untrue: >60% of the population trust the BBC’s news output.¹ > The government is, at least in theory, accountable to the people. It is less accou…

> Four years? It sounds like you’re rather unfamiliar with the UK.

I agree OP sounds like an uninformed american, but since 1979 there's been an general election every 4 years on average.

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#166

Post by iso1210 »

n8cpdx wrote: post #124
iso1210 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rights issues, and of course the fact that BBC content is -- a fair whack of BBC funding comes from Worldwide (or whatever it's called this week), which sells BBC material internationally. Watch a BBC production on CBS or PBS or BBS or whatever and some money goes back to the BBC. I believe Britbox is an option too. Same with television formats. Dancing with the Stars I believe is a popular US program based on a BBC…

I still don't understand why I (an American) can't pay the BBC money for access to iPlayer. BBC has been saying hell no to my money for over a decade now. It doesn't make sense. Free money! You could lower your TV tax! I think it must be BBC official policy that they want the whole world buying VPN and pirating the content. It doesn't make sense. Throwing money away and then asking why they aren't competitive with th…

1) the rights to show those programs outside the UK don't exist

2) If they do exist, this would cannibalise the income via global sales, and someone has (rightly or wrongly) crunched the numbers and determined that selling Top Gear to foreign broadcasters makes more money than having iplayer as a subscription. There may also be political issues with having iplayer as a subscription too (including a call from the right wing to make iplayer subscription based for everyone. After OnDigital/ITVDigital collapsed, the BBC got in very quickly with freeview, ensuring that large numbers of decoders lacked a CAM and thus making it harder to argue for subscription)

See also Channel 5 sell Peppa Pig to Nickleodon rather than doing it direct. Or paramount selling rights to Star Trek series' via netflix or amazon rather than paramount plus outside the US.

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#167

Post by iso1210 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #81
908B64B197 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their 'channels' are netflix, amazon and disney. When I had the choice and they were pre-school then sure, we watched things like Alphablocks on iplayer. I can force them to watch Attenborough or Blue Peter, and they enjoy it, just not enough to want to watch them over things on disney. There's so much competition of things to do. > This itself might not say a lot, and I still have a TV license despite the limited…

This feels like saying "why not get rid of government funded schools and have children watch Marvel and Disney instead?". The BBC's mission was to "inform, educate and entertain", Disney's and Marvels is more like "entertain, addict and profit". From Wikipedia about the origins of the BBC: > " The British Broadcasting Corporation came into existence on 1 January 1927, and Reith – newly knighted – was appointed its fi…

The problem is people used to watch Blue Peter, Tomorrows World and Reith lectures because there was limited choice. Now they on the whole don't.

The article isn't advocating getting rid of the BBC, it's just reflecting on reality. The BBC has for a century been part of the nations culture. People from all backgrounds and all areas of the country earned their blue peter badges because they came home from school and blue peter was on.

That's decreasingly the case now.

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#168

Post by klelatti »

nostromo wrote: post #150
kmeisthax wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it even possible to cover Brexit in a "neutral" way that everyone likes?

They were so anti-Brexit, it got a bit ridiculous. One example: "Brexit threat to sandwiches" https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44960293 I am happy to report that there are still sandwiches in the UK.

Actually kudos to the BBC for pointing out possible supply chain issues following Brexit. We should have seen more of this kind of challenge to both sides.

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#169

Post by pfranz »

iso1210 wrote: post #16

My kids have no concept of linear TV. My 9 year old came back and told me that a friend had a broken TV as when they turned it on, the program was already half way through. Their 'channels' are netflix, amazon and disney. When I had the choice and they were pre-school then sure, we watched things like Alphablocks on iplayer. I can force them to watch Attenborough or Blue Peter, and they enjoy it, just not enough to w…

From what I hear from other parents, the PBS Kids app is a great space where parents can trust kids and has decent content. YouTube Kids is a garbage wasteland and regular YouTube needs diligent monitoring for young kids. I find the app silos and bespoke UX (and behavior of things like offline viewing) of Netflix, Disney+, et al inscrutable for kids and some adults. I also think cable and TV manufactures helped push away young kids with their poor UX. "Back in my day" you turn on the TV you get a picture, you change the channel and instantly get another picture (admittedly, I did grow up with tuning into stations with an antennae)--but cable has been terrible for decades. Turn on the TV, turn on the cable box (and maybe stereo, too), make sure the correct input is selected, click to the next channel and wait 3-5 seconds. Good luck explaining that to the babysitter or parents staying over. They usually just use their phone.

I feel like PBS Kids has been doing a decent job. I also think NPR has done similarly well with podcasts--but I'm not sure how mainstream that is. Maybe BBC transitions to only documenting cultural milestones? I was just watching a BBC recording of Oscar Peterson from the 70s yesterday. I don't know if people like him were as popular as "shitty sitcoms in the 80s," but I'm glad someone was sponsoring and preserving these performances.

Re: The bargain at the heart of the BBC is fraying

#170

Post by M2Ys4U »

parenthesis wrote: post #59

Why isn't everything the BBC has ever made available on a streaming service for license free payers? I'd love to able to watch the TV news for days when interesting things happened; old dramas with `low production values' but actual acting and writing and stories and no constant gratuitous cuts and close-ups …

>Why isn't everything the BBC has ever made available on a streaming service for license free payers?

1. Rights issues. The BBC doesn't actually own the bundle of exclusive rights to a lot of the content that they commission. The rights belong to the independent production companies that actually make the shows.

2. Regulation. The BBC has often been blocked by regulators from having a comprehensive SVoD service other than for catch-up, because it was seen as a threat to commercial entities (like Netflix).

3. Missing archives. Not so much an issue these days, but historically archiving was not a priority, at all. Many programmes were broadcast and then forgotten about. There are episodes of classic Doctor Who which are just lost to time now, for example.

Post reply on HN