Slashdot Mirror
Government Could Ban BBC From Showing Top Shows at Peak Times (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The BBC is on a collision course with the government over reported efforts to bar it from showing popular shows at peak viewing times. The culture secretary, John Whittingdale, is widely expected to ban the broadcaster from going head-to-head with commercial rivals as part of the BBC charter review. He is due to publish a white paper within weeks that will set out a tougher regime as part of a new royal charter to safeguard the service for another 11 years. ITV has complained about licence fee money being used to wage a ratings battle with it and other channels funded by advertising. A source at the BBC said the public would be deeply concerned if it were forced to move programmes such as Strictly Come Dancing, Doctor Who and Sherlock from prime time weekend slots.In some unrelated news, Clarkson, Hammond, and May are still figuring out the name for their new show.
Kill the Beeb's ratings and then they'll claim it can't compete and should be shut down or sold off to one of their cronies for pennies.
If ordinary people are loosing money, then sadly there is nothing to do about it.
If rich people are loosing money, or not getting as much as they want, then the rules must be changed. Even, as in this case, it is detrimental to everybody else.
Solution: Adblock and piracy.
I'm trying to remember the last programme by ITV that I regularly watched. Last time I looked it was a bunch of generic cheap reality crap. I guess there's Downton Abbey but that's done now. Seriously, ITV made its bed and is now complaining that people don't want to watch crappy shows that get broken up every few mins by adverts. What a shock. The problem for ITV isn't the time the programmes are on, but rather VOD services such as iPlayer meaning people don't sit in front to the TV any more at a specific time and they definitely don't want to watch adverts. ITV Player is a joke by the way. Netflix and iPlayer. Job done.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
This is the kind of BS you have to worry about when you have government doing things it shouldn't be doing, like running a national TV network
Yes, I envy the USA and the wonderful, unbiassed, philanthropic networks run by massive multinational corporations - and the great thing is, freedom of choice: you can choose to watch the network run by the massive multinational corporation who's entrenched interests best represents your interests. Plus, of course, the US networks are famous for never censoring or regulating content.
Oh, yes, there's public broadcasting in the US. I remember watching a show on one such channel once when visiting the US: it was the original British version of House of Cards (not the Netflix US remake) in which the anti-hero F.U. takes on (and outwits) the King who Didn't Resemble Charles At All... the US channel actually prefaced it with a little lecture about the evils of monarchy* just in case any USA viewers started rooting for the King (because although F.U. was an evil, corrupt murdering bastard, he had been democratically elected after democratically murdering/smearing/blackmailing his opponents). Not sure which sponsor had insisted on that little rider. (NB: the UK monarch doesn't actually get to run the country - I'm still not a fan, but we need the tourism and the alternative would probably be to outsource the whole bunch to Disney who'd be far more likely to interfere with running the country)
Anyway, at least PBS doesn't run those adverts telling you how wonderful it is that you get to watch adverts because they protect your right to choose products made by the companies that can afford the most adverts (seriously - Philip K Dick would be proud. This was some years ago, are they still running?)
NB: The government doesn't run the BBC, but every 10 years or so they get the chance to re-write the charter under which it operates. That's what's happening at the moment - and the current government would quite like to shut it down to keep their friends in big media companies happy. You can tell the government doesn't run the BBC because if they did they'd have already shut it down.
* Citation needed, I know, but it was a while ago and the bruise where my jaw hit the floor has long gone. It was certainly a "did that just happen?" moment.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Yes, I envy the USA and the wonderful, unbiassed, philanthropic networks run by massive multinational corporations
Yes, because the BBC has never shown bias or having an agenda driven by politics.
and the great thing is, freedom of choice: you can choose to watch the network run by the massive multinational corporation who's entrenched interests best represents your interests
Yes, there are a great number of choices, and you know, sometimes entertainment is just entertainment and not a corporate conspiracy to do their bidding. Of course, you can always go online or do whatever. But thank god you have the BBC to save you from the horrible fate of American television viewers!
This is the kind of BS you have to worry about when you have government doing things it shouldn't be doing, like running a national TV network
You're right about "government doing things it shouldn't be doing". The BBC is established under a Royal Charter which is supposed to make it a public institution independent of the government of the day. However, governments of the day have never really been able to keep their hands off - from widespread security vetting of BBC staff, heavy-handed threats relating to programs on defence and security issues through to the latest plundering of the TV licence revenue to fund welfare and broadband iniatives at the cost of programming (including one TV channel lost).
The government is supposed to leave running the BBC's national TV networks (and radio networks) to the BBC, but the BBC has always been supine in the face of government pressure (partly because the government can, in the end, turn off the money and partly because its oversight board is stuffed with government appointees many of whom are looking forward to their next sinecure) with the inevitable consequence that each demand is more onerous than the last.