you misquoted me!! that's not fair. ok, it was a long evening
and you did that misquoteing thingie!! were even!

Quote hollowsun:

---

It's 'Fukushima' BTW

---

Well said - I, 4 1, would not want to get that wrong - he also makes very nice synthesizers.

say nothing hollowsun i could do with a friend right now.

Really?

Why?

?

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote Airfix:

---

you misquoted me!! that's not fair. ok, it was a long evening
and you did that misquoteing thingie!! were even!

---

I failed to 'fess up to editing you, as I did do for hollowsun last night. I apologise Airfix! So here's a confession in lieu. I'm slightly dexlixik and totally screwed without spell checker!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Really?

Why?

?

---

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Now I have a bed that beckons.... ?

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Really?

Why?

?

---

---

Because it self finances?

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

Although I still think I can see the genuine intent

---

So you genuinely think/believe that Clarkson actually wanted all the strikers to be executed in front of their families and that was his genuine intent?

---

What I think is that he genuinely thought it was cool to make cheap capital out of other people's suffering and hardship. And that a public broadcaster is not the right platform for that brand of whatever you would call it (humor/entertainment... I have no idea - its neither of those to me).

---

Personally (and FWIW) I think you should lighten up a bit. Clarkson's just a bit of froth but his 'importance' is magnified by the media who jump on every contentious statement he might make ... and what people CHOOSE to take offence at.

That said, there's sometimes a grain of truth and some polemic behind the controversial quips he makes which makes them a little interesting as well as chucklesome. I find him (and the TG co-presenters and programme) and his irreverence amusing and I have liked many of the other, less expected, documentaries he's made - his "I Know You Got Soul: Machines with a Certain Something" book was (IMO) a damned good read.

And there is no underestimating the popularity of TG - millions watch it (many more so worldwide generating much needed revenue for Aunty Beeb) and occasionally a handful of people complain and choose to take offence over something totally innocuous which the media blow up into a major (non) news event, creating a bandwagon upon which idiots jump onto. In that respect, you are guilty -- don't watch TG, didn't see the 'execute the strikers' thing but are 'offended' nonetheless.

As for peoples' suffering and hardship, well... you and I will have to agree to disagree - public servants whining about pay and guaranteed pensions should have a chat with a freelance self-employed. But that's the subject of another thread perhaps.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Frisonic:

---

What I think is that he genuinely thought it was cool to make cheap capital out of other people's suffering and hardship.

---

Hmmm. (a) It is called satire and it has been a fundamental part of the British culture for centuries! And (b) there was no suffering or hardship involved. The strike was about greed and intransigence.

Quote:

---

And that a public broadcaster is not the right platform for that brand of whatever you would call it

---

That is an opinion that I think relatively few would agree with, but I totally respect your right to hold it.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Frisonic:

---

I'm trying to think of a similar example to the Clarkson/Brand type incidents from an independent broadcaster but none come to mind so far. Perhaps that's because they recognise they have a duty not to offend their sponsors?

---

I think it's more likely to be a selective memory issue...

Ofcom has certainly taken ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to task a fair few times in recent years. Things said on Big Brother come immediately to mind, for a start -- and that programme is broadcast through profanity delays too!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote hollowsun:

---

Clarkson's just a bit of froth

---

Exactly. Not to be taken seriously. Millions of people also like to drink coffee as a frothy cappuccino and there isn't any harm in that either. Perhaps I should have argued Sky would be a more comfortable televisual home for him, given his column in News International's Sunday Times and they way he emulates America's (and news Corps's) Fox News 'shock jock' format. A better fit. But thinking about it whilst the BBC have channels that broadcast a high percentage of froth actually Sky do not. They broadcast other peoples froth on their service, sure. Hundreds of channels of the stuff, including the BBC's. But they only actually make/commission programs that are more substantive and elegant. Even the series they made with Ronnie Wood as host, and let's face it he's capable of his own moments of sensationalism, avoided sensationalism. Entertaining though they were. One could be forgiven for thinking Sky had out BBC'd the BBC. Who as the self appointed 'guardians' of culture in the UK merrily go about making programs designed to appeal to baser and baser instincts.

If I was drafting their new charter that's where I'd be scaling things back. I'd have the BBC do less froth, less sensationalism and less of the banal. Because there are now plenty of other people who make that, even if Sky find they are more successful by not. And I'd beef up the focus on the more quality output, which is where they can and on a good day do thrive. A simple, cost efficient way to achieve that aim would be to enshew the 'star' culture they have gotten themselves immersed in. Its unnecessarily expensive and what usually gets them bad press. It would also free up room to consolidate their output into fewer channels, saving even more money. A scaled back, higher quality BBC more deserving of the reputation that currently pads out its laurels.

So, if I ran the zoo:

What I wouldn't want to get rid of (but would return to quality and vigorously prune of most 'star' presenters):

Two television channels.
The website.
The 24 hour rolling news service.
Radio's 1,2,3 & 4.
The World Service (with renewed emphasis on unbiased, factual reporting)
The regional programming, especially radio but also television in wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (expensive though it is it serves an important function - there is a case for direct funding of these from regional government budgets).
Sport, possibly with its own dedicated channel (but I'd move the focus more towards less televised sports and the emphasis more towards participation). I'm open minded about the relevance of Radio 5 in the internet age.
Child orientated content, but review what's broadcast on screen and what online. It currently has its own channel but how popular is that? I don't know. I'd want to hear from parents.

And before anybody comes back enraged about the omission of Radio 6 that would get consolidated with Radio 1 whilst Radio 3 would do more jazz than it already does.

What I would want to get rid of:

Most of the froth, banal trite and luvies (leave that to the independents).
Two television channels- BBC3 and BBC4 type content would be reintegrated back into the two main channels, in the space I just freed up. Let's face it, BBC4 makes great programs but they broadcast only part time and the programs are endlessly repeated. Why bother with iPlayer available to fulfill the convenience element of repeats?

What I would want to change:

All content to be stricter about the unbiased rule.
More public service content, as befits the function of a public broadcaster.
Parliament 'action' broadcast online only.
More coverage of special events on temporary dedicated channels, in the same way the BBC are currently broadcasting their Olympic coverage (brilliant technology and doesn't disrupt programming on the regular channels).

How I would begin the review process:

Hold a comprehensive public consultation (not a simple survey - a full blown public consultation) about the funding model, including the advertising question (which I'd expect the public to unanimously reject the thought of) and review the budget and how it is raised/allocated accordingly. We can't know what that would look like until after the consultation. And we couldn't fine tune the above intent until we knew where the money was coming from and how much.

That's what I'd be doing. Hugh will now patiently explain what essential technical fundamentals I've overlooked and that the Olympic type coverage is stupidly expensive. What would other people do if doing nothing was not an option?

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Ofcom has certainly taken ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to task a fair few times in recent years. Things said on Big Brother come immediately to mind, for a start -- and that programme is broadcast through profanity delays too!

hugh

---

You don't surprise me Hugh. I am proud to say I have never watched a reality television programme before in my life. probably why I've tuned out the rows they generate.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Quote RegressiveRock:

---

Really?

Why?

?

---

---

Because it self finances?

---

Nothing is free.

Are you really that naive, matey?

Or is this commercial ingenue?

Murdoch must love you...

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

I hope the BBC continue to dismiss, ignore or outwardly bait these kind of people!

---

You'd have thought that would be more the independent broadcaster's line of country. But strangely they seem to behave better than the BBC.

---

No, I wouldn't have thought that at all. I actually value freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It would upset me greatly if artists and entertainers were curtailed and censored by their corporate paymasters. People don't want neutered, watered down rubbish beamed into their homes every day. This is why the BBC is so popular and Sky, despite the incredible amount of money it has spent securing football rights and Simpsons episodes, could fall off the face of the earth for all most people care.

Quote:

---

I'm trying to think of a similar example to the Clarkson/Brand type incidents from an independent broadcaster but none come to mind so far. Perhaps that's because they recognise they have a duty not to offend their sponsors?

---

Well exactly! All they care about is fulfilling the demands of corporate entities. Which are, exposing people to advertising and bending people's will in a way which suits big business. If you don't see the problem with that then the BBC is the least of your troubles!

Quote Frisonic:

---

...whilst the BBC have channels that broadcast a high percentage of froth actually Sky do not. They broadcast other peoples froth on their service, sure.... But they only actually make/commission programs that are more substantive and elegant.

---

To be fair, it's only recently that they've had any suitable facilities to make anything other than news and sports-linking programmes. The vast majority of Sky's output is outside broadcast sport, repeated American 'froth', and a decent 24/7 news serives (plus a few minor news bits for other channels).

However, with the recent completion of their new Harlequin broadcast centre, and the planned Harlequin 2, I'm absolutely certain they'll soon be producing a load of in-house froth that will quickly out-do anything the BBC or the daytime ITV companies have managed!

Quote:

---

...the BBC. Who as the self appointed 'guardians' of culture in the UK...

---

They are NOT self appointed. They are required, by a Government Charter, to promote various forms of culture, which they do -- while also fulfilling the other chater requirements.

Quote:

---

...merrily go about making programs designed to appeal to baser and baser instincts.

---

That's mainly Channel 5 I think you'll find

There is, obviously, some populist programming, but there is also a good balance of more intellectual fair across most of the BBCs channels, especially BBC2, BBC4 and Radios 3 and 4. You've already admitted that no other broadcaster comes close to the quality of Radio 3, and you can easily add BBC 4 and Radio 4 to that list.

Quote:

---

If I was drafting their new charter that's where I'd be scaling things back. I'd have the BBC do less froth, less sensationalism and less of the banal.

---

If it was me, I'd make it an Ofcom policy to improve the general standard of TV across the board -- for the good of the nation! Sadly, a significant proportion of the UK population can't cope with and doesn't want intellectual programming. They want sensationalist banal froth. Sad but true! Forcing the BBC not to make such progammes might seem a good idea, but I'm not sure it would really help.

Quote:

---

A simple, cost efficient way to achieve that aim would be to enshew the 'star' culture they have gotten themselves immersed in. Its unnecessarily expensive and what usually gets them bad press.

---

The bad press is only because it sells papers. Anyone who appears on TV is inherently a 'star', and once they are a 'star' they can demand a lot of money -- and usually get it, too. If the BBC didn't pay something close to the 'going rate' that other broadcasters are willing to pay they wouldn't get established, knowledgable, capable, experienced presenters. Instead, they'd be forever searching for and training wannabe presenters -- which is far more time-consuming and therefore expensive in the long run -- and as soon as they've been trained and gained experience at the license payers expense they would quickly go off to the other broadcasters for more money! It's short-term blinkered thinking, I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

It would also free up room to consolidate their output into fewer channels, saving even more money.

---

The incremental costs of maintaining additional channels within an existing transmission muliplex is not particularly significant given that the technical infrastructure already exists. It's little more than the salary of a couple of presenters (which can be shared with the other network presentation duties anyway). Creating the original content is very expensive, but transmitting it is relatively cheap.

So, if I ran the zoo:

Quote:

---

(childrens TV) currently has its own channel but how popular is that? I don't know. I'd want to hear from parents.

---

It's two channels, time-shared with BBC3 and BBC4, and it's hugely popular and important for kids and parents alike.

Quote:

---

What I would want to get rid of:

Most of the froth, banal trite and luvies (leave that to the independents).

---

One person's 'froth' is another's relaxing entertainment! Would the BBC be banned from being 'entertaining' under Frisonic Law?

Quote:

---

Parliament 'action' broadcast online only.

---

Not everyone has a computer -- or wants one. Broadcasting Parliament proceedings is very obviously the Public Service broadcasting of which you claim to want more!

Quote:

---

More coverage of special events on temporary dedicated channels

---

Now that does get very expensive very quickly...

Quote:

---

...and that the Olympic type coverage is stupidly expensive.

---

It is! I'm reliably informed that the host broadcast coverage (sent around the world as notionally the BBC's output) involves 35 separate in-house production teams looking after the coverage of the different sports/venues around the country. There are something like 75 OB trucks involved -- all needing crews -- with less than half that number coming from the UK's independent OB companies, the rest have had to be hired in from Europe (the Belgian company Alfacam has apparently provided 24 of them!). And that's before you start counting in all the de-rigged facilities built up in portacabins and the like and all the other OB facilities for other nation's broadcasters. It really is an astonishingly expensive thing to do!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

QUOTE

"The bad press is only because it sells papers. Anyone who appears on TV is inherently a 'star', and once they are a 'star' they can demand a lot of money -- and usually get it, too. If the BBC didn't pay something close to the 'going rate' that other broadcasters are willing to pay they wouldn't get established, knowledgable, capable, experienced presenters. Instead, they'd be forever searching for and training wannabe presenters -- which is far more time-consuming and therefore expensive in the long run -- and as soon as they've been trained and gained experience at the license payers expense they would quickly go off to the other broadcasters for more money! It's short-term blinkered thinking, I'm afraid."

Nah, I think thats far to soft. Everybody complains about all the high wages in public service, but get scared that some ego centric half-wit is going to walk if they dont get a trough for themselves!

How about making the opportunities at the BBC more open. Stop giving all the presenting jobs to sons and daughters, have a better presence in schools, have regional scouts, make more of an effort to show that the BBC is in fact for everyone, not just another comfy option for the privaleged few after cloisters.

--------------------

Quote Chaconne:

---

Nah, I think thats far to soft. Everybody complains about all the high wages in public service, but get scared that some ego centric half-wit is going to walk if they dont get a trough for themselves!

How about making the opportunities at the BBC more open. Stop giving all the presenting jobs to sons and daughters, have a better presence in schools, have regional scouts, make more of an effort to show that the BBC is in fact for everyone, not just another comfy option for the privaleged few after cloisters.

---

Its only like that viewed from the outside. There are plenty of opportunities if you are prepared to put the work in.

Quote Chaconne:

---

How about making the opportunities at the BBC more open.

---

All formal jobs are advertised externally -- they have to be, by law. So on that side it could hardly be more open! When it comes to presenters, it is normally done by auditions, much like any acting role -- but often again with advertised vacancies in the appropriate trade papers and agencies. Sometimes it is because of someone's reputation or background, and very occasionally there might well be some nepotism --as there is in every business around the world.

However, presenting -- especially live work -- is a very demanding role that few can actually manage... as is blatently obvous from the number of amateurs we see and hear across most TV channels every day!

Quote:

---

...have a better presence in schools, have regional scouts,

---

I can see the Daily Mail headlines already!

Is it me, are are there a lot of chipped shoulders around here?

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

You can be a critic of the BBC without being right wing, or a Daily Mail reader or having a chip on your shoulder. Thats just condescending.

90% of the BBC is 'entertainment' - thats not a good enough reason to tax the entire population at the same rate for. Or if it is, they need to do better - they cant just gather up all the money and then do what they like with it. Oh - wait - thats what they do - and if you dont like it - tough! Or you have 'Right to Reply' I guess.

--------------------

Quote Chaconne:

---

You can be a critic of the BBC without being right wing, or a Daily Mail reader or having a chip on your shoulder. Thats just condescending.

---

No offence intended, and you can certainly be a critic of the BBC without inherently having any of those characteristics. However, from where I'm sitting, it is equally condescending to make crass statements like:

"Stop giving all the presenting jobs to sons and daughters", and "just another comfy option for the privaleged few after cloisters."

They don't read like comments from someone fully in command of a balanced view based on facts -- but as I say, no personal offence intended.

Clearly, there are strongly held views and opinions on both sides of this debate -- which is a fine and healthy thing. I'm just becoming weary of four pages of poorly informed opinions given as fact.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Well, I dont know where you are sitting - in a BBC studio? I would never confuble criticism of an institution with an individual working for it.

--------------------

Quote Frisonic:

---

If I was drafting their new charter...

---

We'd end up with an Open University channel by the looks of it with dull, bearded and be-sandalled presenters!

That would suit ME fine up to a point except I'd miss Top Gear, QI, Have I Got News For You, Mock The Week and others which you consider to be froth.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

"They don't read like comments from someone fully in command of a balanced view based on facts -- but as I say, no personal offence intended. "

OK,
buisness forum link to Laurie Taylor on nepotism in media

She concludes "a surprising number of relatives..."

--------------------

Quote Chaconne:

---

"They don't read like comments from someone fully in command of a balanced view based on facts -- but as I say, no personal offence intended. "

OK,
buisness forum link to Laurie Taylor on nepotism in media

She concludes "a surprising number of relatives..."

---

Yes, I listened to that program this afternoon. It was a sociological discussion about a critical report into middle class media people looking to recruit from the middle classes in ALL of the media (nepotism being one of a number of failings highlighted). So it is as appropriate to Sky, ITV, and the entire independent sector as it is to the BBC, probably more so as the BBC does still do some recruiting and training.

Also, it highlighted that this was a direct result of the BBC being compelled to contract out to independent production companies who had to work fast and tended to use people they knew rather than training up staff and recruiting through transparent processes that Hugh has pointed out that the BBC still uses. It also drew attention to the fact that prior to this forced change the BBC had an excellent track record in recruiting people on merit and training them to progress through the organisation.

So, the fact you linked to actually supports Hugh's position

Andy

PS... This was Laurie Taylor's regular program 'Thinking Allowed'.... on BBC Radio 4

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Is it me, are are there a lot of chipped shoulders around here?

hugh

---

There really are a lot of people who have issues with the BBC. Honest! Thanks for your earlier response BTW, which was as informative as ever. One thing that particularly resonated was your saying first and foremost, if anything was going to change, you'd like to see Ofcom charged with raising standards across the board, or words (I hope I'm not misquoting you) to that effect. I thought it was a great comment and that in itself would alley many of my concerns.

One thing that gets under people's skin is a sense that nobody has any kind of meaningful handle on broadcasting standards. They seem to have gone down a long way. Perhaps that's a consequence of so many channels now being available, many of them broadcasting stuff you can't believe actually attracts any advertisers. And you could argue the BBC suffer by association. However, to many Ofcom come across as a rudderless shambles. If they were perceived as being more effective perhaps it would be easier to believe in the rest of it. So I'd like to see your wish granted. What are the chances?

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote hollowsun:

---

I'd miss Top Gear, QI, Have I Got News For You, Mock The Week

---

QI and Mock the Week are well put together. I don't watch them but I recognise them as good content. For me Have I got News for You has got a bit old. Not frothy, just old. It used to be compelling viewing for me but not for years now. But then I don't think Private Eye is what it was under Ingrams either... Anyway, apart from the motoring one, which as you know I think belongs on an independent, those programs are all good for a public broadcaster. They certainly wouldn't be on my scaling back list. Although I'd probably have anchors and other presenters on any given format do their stint on a more finite basis, because I am concerned about the star culture thing, which I think is linked to the 'nepotism' debate also being discussed. Obviously these people aren't actually relatives but there is a BBC 'family' which its very easy to feel excluded from if it all tends to see the world the same way, as it often does, and its contrary to your own view. I used to really love Stephen Fry, up to the point when he made 'Oscar'. But since he became a 'national treasure' I think to some extent he's dumbed himself down and started to tow a certain line to the point where I feel more ambivalent about him. Its like he's not thinking for himself in the same way anymore. That's an example of what concerns me about the star culture thing. Of course in his case that might easily also be to do with how he has coped with his own depression, a peaceful life will do and all that. And I'll be the first to say when he's talked about that subject he's been at his lucid best. His journey around Wagner was great television too. But you compare his trek around the USA in his London Taxi with what James Oliver produced when he went discovering the USA through food. Fry produced a picture postcard with a few cosy drinks amongst new found chums. Entertaining enough but very tame. Oliver got under the skin of the place as I've never seen anybody else do before. It was riveting viewing, never sensationalist and what he got across was the real thing. That IMO was really great television which could be enjoyed by anyone.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

QI and Mock the Week are well put together. I don't watch them but I recognise them as good content.

---

Which contends slightly with your stance that the BBC is a 'state broadcaster' and all that that implies - MTW and HIGNFY take the piss out of the establishment while QI debunks many long established myths. But they are just the TV channels - R4 have programmes such as 'The Now Show', 'News Quiz', etc., that mercilessly take the p!ss out the establishment (including the one that employs them). And those are just the light hearted comedy programmes - other programmes get down to the nitty gritty (including today's 'Thinking Allowed' that questioned nepotism in the media - including the Beeb). 'State broadcasters' in many, many other countries would not allow that (which is why your implications of connections with the TV licence and the USSR are specious to say the least). There's the story (probably apocryphal) that the USSR once had two channels - one broadcast propaganda while the other announced "Why are you watching this channel - please turn back to Channel 1"!

Of course Top Gear could move to a commercial channel but the Beeb would be a lot worse off financially if it did move. And if you ever watched that programme (which you appear not to - even though you seem to have a shedload of opinions on it), you'll see that cars that are reviewed don't always come out well (even Clarkson's beloved Ferraris and Jags!) - in fact, some get a right old slating. I'm not sure that would happen if TG was on a commercial channel where, for example, Jaguar (whoever) would/might take out advertising and the programmes producers would take Jezza, the Hamster and May to one side with a word in their ear to be nice. The lack of advertising allows those three naughty boys to be honest without risk of product placement, advertising, etc.. That they want to wrap it in a humorous presentation is their choice and appears to be very popular. In fact, when TG was simply a car programme, it garnered very few viewers. Clarkson was an early presenter but left - when Clarkson returned and turned it into an irreverent, laddish, semi comedy programme that poked fun at stuff but with a bit of serious car reviewing thrown in as well with talk of BHP and torque and understeering, etc., viewing figures rose exponentially to the point that it is now one of the the Beeb's biggest exports. You might not like it, you might want all taxpayer funded BBC programmes to be po-faced and serious but there are millions who'd disagree with you.

What are your feelings about Lucy Worsley? Historian and Chief Curator at Historic Royal Palaces, she has made some absolutely fantastic programmes for the BBC. She's the star in them, plays a flirtatious, teasing roll, is dead cute but dear God, can she make history interesting and fun ... and entertaining programmes - my daughter has learnt more from her programmes than she has in years of history lessons in school. You'd possibly/probably regard Lucy as frothy and 'celebrity' and of the 'star culture' and dispense with her.

And what of Brian Cox? He's a 'media star/celeb' now but makes captivating programmes and those programmes he made with Dara O'brien (another media star/comedy celeb ... but a science grad and not at all stupid) about amateur astronomy were (IMO) excellent, even inspirational, and had people buying telescopes, etc., so that they could observe and photograph the night sky. And in astronomy, it's often been the keen amateur who has made the best discoveries ... such as Robert Owen Evans, an Australian priest who has discovered more supernovae from his modest outback house than NASA.

As for Stephen Fry... he may have mellowed (it happens as you get older) but I don't sense any real evidence of him 'dumbing down' (his thoughts on the Catholic church not so long ago seems to reveal this) - as erudite as ever. Sorry you didn't like his US trip - I did... I think his self-deprecating English charm worked well to coax stuff out of those he spoke to.

Quote Frisonic:

---

That IMO...

---

And that's all it is - your opinion ... and prejudices and hangups about an establishment you seem to have a dislike of for whatever reason (and which I don't quite understand) which you seem to like philosophise about, adopting some moral highground that only you know the truth (I am trying to avoid the old thing that opinions are like arseholes in that everyone has one ... but I failed!).

And on that note, you and I (and others here) have an impasse - you don't seem to like or value the BBC and think the licence fee is some outrageous stealth tax. I (and others) don't and I think the UK and many other countries would be much poorer places without the Beeb which, whilst not perfect, is a damned sight better by a long shot than most broadcasters here and elsewhere.

There are plenty more things to get steamed up over than the 40p a day we pay for the Beeb (IMO) and it might be worth mentioning (on the subject of stealth taxes) that a vast amount of people spend FAR more on lottery tickets they can ill afford than they do on the TV licence.... and they spend MUCH more on their Sky and mobile phone subscriptions too.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

This has surely run its course????...pwease Mr. Modewator!

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote Chaconne:

---

She concludes "a surprising number of relatives..."

---

I've heard it said, often, and it may be more of an issue in independent production circles -- I have no real evidence either way, although I have occasionally seen independent shoots where someone in production has brought along a uni-student child in the holidays to act as a free runner, and that kind of thing.

However, I can honestly say that during the last 30-odd years within and without the BBC on the technical side, I can only think of a couple of situations where new recruits have obviously landed jobs because daddy has got it for them. In one case the guy was hopeless and disinterested and left fairly quickly, and in the others they did well entirely on their own merits once the door had been opened. But in reality, they would both have sailed through interview and technical boards anyway.

On the other hand, I am aware of quite a few who have been influenced into wanting to get into broadcasting in some role because their parent's work has inspired them to do so. After all TV and radio is a fun industry (most of the time). And they have got there through normal job applications and interviews.

If someone says yes when you ask them:'Do your parents work in this industry?' doesn't necessarily mean they got there though nepotism!

I know of dozens of children who have gone into law, or accountancy, or the medical profession because one or other of their parents work in that industry too. So they've gone and achieved the appropriate qualifications and applied for those jobs, and not because the parent got them a job, but becuase that's what they wanted to do and they arrived there on their own initiative.

It is quite a common effect across the planet. How many children develop an interest in playing a musical instrument because one or other parent does?


As for the 'middle class' accusation, well yeah, of course. Most jobs in the production and technical sides of broadcasting require intelligence, good interpersonal skills, literacy and numeracy, team working and initiative -- all the kinds of things that are predominant in educated middle class people.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Frisonic:

---

There really are a lot of people who have issues with the BBC.

---

Absolutely -- I appreciate that and, as I've already said, Even I have some issues with some aspects of the way the BBC is organised and funded, and of some of its programming. And I'm very happy to have respectful debates about it and to contribute relevant facts and fact-based opinions where it is helpful.

But when it comes to Daily Mail style accusations like some of those earlier I tend to get a little frustrated...

Quote:

---

One thing that particularly resonated was your saying first and foremost, if anything was going to change, you'd like to see Ofcom charged with raising standards across the board, or words (I hope I'm not misquoting you) to that effect. I thought it was a great comment and that in itself would alley many of my concerns.

---

I do think that some minimum level of moral and ethically standards (as well as technical standards, come to that) should be maintained, and OFCOM should be the body that does that across all networks. Currently a lot of rubbish is permitted that really shouldn't be there, and OFCOM only seems to get involved when the papers stir up a serious level of discontent.

H

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Frisonic:

---

Anyway, apart from the motoring one, which as you know I think belongs on an independent, those programs are all good for a public broadcaster.

---

I genuinely don't understand why QI and HIGNFY qualify in your book to remain, yet TG doesn't. They are all light entertainment. They are all perceived as funny and entertaining to those who enjoy them. They all have substantial audience figures. What's the difference?

Quote:

---

Fry produced a picture postcard with a few cosy drinks amongst new found chums. Entertaining enough but very tame. Oliver got under the skin of the place as I've never seen anybody else do before.

---

The difference is that Oliver makes programmes through his own production company and had a very specific agenda which was as much about promoting Oliver as it was revealing America's attitude to food. Fry's postcard was intended to be a light frothy programme from the outset and Fry was the presenter, not the director/producer. There's an important distinction between driving a programme, and accepting a contract to present a programme.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

On the other hand, I am aware of quite a few who have been influenced into wanting to get into broadcasting in some role because their parent's work has inspired them to do so. After all TV and radio is a fun industry (most of the time). And they have got there through normal job applications and interviews.
hugh

---

I can think of one offspring of a well known media mogul who definitely ended up in the industry as a result of his father's position and almost certainly didn't go through the normal application and interview process. Nothing to do with the BBC though! It took Scotland Yard and the Leveson Inquiry to finally smoke him out... Seriously, when talking about nepotism I totally agree there is a distinction to be made between following one's parents example/footsteps and being part of a dynasty. Its the latter where the damage potentially gets done and that people feel uneasy about. It happens in all industries but that doesn't mean people should just accept it without question. However, if we really wanted to rid ourselves of nepotism we would also have to abolish inheritance, which there's quite a strong case for actually. I'm all in favour myself and easy for me to say as I have deliberately avoided being a parent. But if you want to start a serious row try having a public debate about that!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote hollowsun:

---

MTW and HIGNFY take the piss out of the establishment while QI debunks many long established myths.

---

But the motoring programme takes the piss out of, or rather enjoys jokes at the expense of identifiable groups across society who are not in a position to defend themselves against such an enormous arsenal of cult, budget and unprecedented 'gift' of studio infrastructure (who else gets their own studio bought for them? I can only think of two examples of that having happened before, The Osmonds and Prince - both studios had to be closed as unsustainable and the Osmonds one, as it was their own money, bankrupted them). Myths deserve to be debunked. The 'establishment' should be challenged and its shoulders are expected to be broad enough to take it, which is why public money is an excellent way to fund it. I'm not even censoring jokes that exploit cultural differences, provided they are done in an even handed way. But I am saying public money has no place in sponsoring divisive humor. People who defend that show always hide behind accusations of political correctness. That's just smoke! First rate humor always has an element of self deprecation. Second rate humor is always at the expense of others. The public purse can only afford to sponsor so much. And that should be the best. The motoring programme makes money. Are we really saying the BBC needs this because it doesn't carry advertising?

I'll fess up to another reason why I mistrust Clarkson. You may remember in one of his programs he staged a race between a car and a big powerboat down the Thames in central London. He might have thrown in a bicycle as well, can't remember because I didn't watch it. But anyway, I do know the show approached the Port of London Authority to ask permission, as it would mean breaking the speed limit on parts of the river - a bit like driving down the M1 ay 200mph when it was still open to normal traffic. For a number of very sound safety reasons and laws PLA declined. Not content the motoring show just did it anyway. That in itself speaks of a certain amount of arrogance. And a great deal of ignorance. It sure as hell has no place in public broadcasting.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

But the motoring programme takes the piss out of, or rather enjoys jokes at the expense of identifiable groups across society.

---

Groups, maybe -- not indentifiable individuals! Those other shows jibe at specific and easily identifable people, which is far worse, surely! But in both cases the comments are clearly intended as humour and are accepted in that way -- even by those on the receiving end in the case of HIGNFY.

The difference with TG is that humourless members of said groups sometimes CHOOSE to take offence when none was intended, usually for personal agendas and political haymaking.

Quote:

---

...who else gets their own studio bought for them?

---

(a) it's an empty airport hanger with an OB truck parked outside, not a purpose built studio
(b)it's leased, not owned
(c) it's quite normal and cost-effective to rent suitable spaces like that for long-term series.

Most Soaps do it (Coronation Street, Brookside, Emerdale, Hollyoaks, River City (BBC Scotland)Casualty/Holby (BBC Wales), etc etc -- and the same is true of many long-running quiz shoes (like Deal or No Deal and others). Should I also mention the Big Brother den of iniquity here too?

Quote:

---

But I am saying public money has no place in sponsoring divisive humor.

---

So that's still HIGNFY out the window then? I'm sure labour party stalwarts get upset when they have a go at the labour party... and ditto Tory members when it's their turn... or trade union members... or any of the other groups and bodies and so forth that frequently come up in the guise of humourous quips. I bet a lot of publishers, editors and contributors of the magazines they ridicule each week get a bit cheesed off too!

Quote:

---

First rate humor always has an element of self deprecation.

---

As you don't watch it you won't be aware of the large amounts of self deprecating humour that pervades every TG show then...

Quote:

---

The motoring programme makes money. Are we really saying the BBC needs this because it doesn't carry advertising?

---

No we're saying it a very handy bonus of an excellent programme that the Beeb makes extremely well and which it's vast audiences enjoy immensely.

Quote:

---

I do know the show approached the Port of London Authority to ask permission, as it would mean breaking the speed limit on parts of the river ... Not content the motoring show just did it anyway.

---

Something else that will need detailed fact checking, but thus sounds like an urban myth to me. The beeb is extremely hot on its production teams making the appropriate requests and abiding by any restrictions given, because failure to do so will inevitably have implications on other programme makers, as well as bring the BBC's name into disrepute. The risk assessment paperwork is a bureaucractic nightmare but must be done and must be signed of by a senior producer who would carry the can if the brown stuff hit the fan.

Clarkson wasn't on his own -- there was a chasing film boat alongside and a helicopter above. Even if Clarkson was cavalier enough to break the limits himself, the tech crews wouldn't have done and the production team would have been screaming at him to stop for fear of an accident that would end their careers.

I also don't recall any major news programmes or papers breaking a story about Clarkson being speeding ollegally on the Thames -- and I'm quite sure there would have been had that been the case!

Moreover, as you didn't watch the programme you wouldn't have heard Clarkson explain that most of the river has a speed limit of 12 knots -- to which he clearly adhered -- but that from a defined point (Tower Bridge, I think) that limit was raised (I believe to 35 knots). He was even filmed on the radio asking the Port Authority if he could procede through the BArrier 'at speed' and was clearly given the go-ahead in reply.

It may all have been a televisual fib, of course, but it was something that they were at pains to point out in the programme.

In any case, plenty of high speed boating goes on on the Thames perfectly legitimately, such as the 'Ultimate Londond Adventure' fast rib tourist attraction boats speeding around the place every day!

Quote:

---

That in itself speaks of a certain amount of arrogance. And a great deal of ignorance. It sure as hell has no place in public broadcasting.

---

I ear the arrogance and ignorance here is actually repeating this twaddle as if it were true. Some fact checking and solid proof is required cos I ain't even slightly conveinced on that one... it sounds like another popular urban myth from the Clarkson-bashing brigade to me -- although I'll happily stand corrected given good evidence.

hugh


--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

[What I was trying to say was that all sensible people who saw and heard what Clarkson said in context within that 'interview' would absolutely have perceived it as very much a tongue-in-cheek statement designed to be deliberately provocative in a humourous way -- the way which we all associate with Clarkson's style of wit.

---

It was a clear satire of "editorial balance" on BBC news
(where they often balance truth and facts with equal amounts of lies and woo-woo)
He even started the joke by saying "Oh it's the BBC, I better provide some balance"
That important context-setting line was cut by most of the biased reporting of it!

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

yes but..YES..but....I HAVE to contribute to Clarksons Cotswold Kingdom on threat of imprisonment!

Thats all.

ahhh...yes...BUT - you HAVE to contribute to all kinds of unfavourable government expenditure on pain of prison...?

BUT - T.G. is not schools, hospitals, the army, NHS etc etc - it is a cutural luxury, ephemera. Like film and music. Something you may want to pay for. A matter of taste. Yours, not mine.

Oh, and with local government at least I get a vote.

--------------------

Quote Frisonic:

---

First rate humor always has an element of self deprecation.

---

By your own admission, you don't watch/like the programme so you're obviously not aware that the presenters are forever having jokes at their own expense, laughing at each other and at themselves.

Quote Frisonic:

---

You may remember in one of his programs he staged a race between a car and a big powerboat down the Thames in central London. He might have thrown in a bicycle as well, can't remember because I didn't watch it.

---

So once again, you didn't watch yet you have an opinion on it. This is what could described as 'doing a Gambaccini' - having strong opinions on something he didn't even see!!

The race was between a car and a bike. The bike won because Clarkson was perpetually stuck in traffic, not speeding around recklessly as you implied.

As Hugh might be able to verify (and as the team have discussed many times), the Health & Safety on TG is bordering on insanity and there is no way that this race would have been allowed to take place if there was the merest hint of a slight possibility of danger to any of the presenters, camera crew, sound recordists, director, etc., or the public.

When Clarkson did his spoof 'review' of the Robin Reliant 3-wheeler (where he turned it over on every corner he took), H&S were all over him and the car to ensure that no-one could come to any harm.

In fact, the programme's a little bit fake - for all the laddish bravado and irreverence, it's wrapped in H&S cotton wool.

The only time there's been a serious accident was when Richard Hammond turned that jet powered thing over but that was completely unforeseen when a tyre shredded. In the aftermath, the degree of H&S was described and it was EXTENSIVE but you can't predict the kind of fault that occurred - one of those things.

But therein lies another aspect - for all the laddish humour, etc. (they always joked that if anyone died on the programme, they'd say "Ah well. And on next week's programme..."), Clarkson and May were at the Hamster's bedside most days while he was in a coma. Of course, when Hammond recovered and returned to the programme, it was business as usual, larking around and each of them taking the mickey out of themselves over the incident.

But that's possibly the success of the programme - the presenters and the team are genuinely fond of each other despite all the messing around. This is where the franchise programmes in other countries don't work - they are presented by yer typical bland ego-driven anchormen trying to imitate the British TG presenters.

Not that I need to defend the programme (or the BBC) but your criticisms are unfair, especially given you don't even watch the programme. A bit like friend of mine who professes to hate curry but has never tasted one - his opinion on Indian cuisine is extremely compromised!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

The race was between a car and a bike. The bike won because Clarkson was perpetually stuck in traffic, not speeding around recklessly as you implied.

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Clarkson wasn't on his own -- there was a chasing film boat alongside and a helicopter above. Even if Clarkson was cavalier enough to break the limits himself, the tech crews wouldn't have done and the production team would have been screaming at him to stop for fear of an accident that would end their careers.

I also don't recall any major news programmes or papers breaking a story about Clarkson being speeding ollegally on the Thames -- and I'm quite sure there would have been had that been the case!

Moreover, as you didn't watch the programme you wouldn't have heard Clarkson explain that most of the river has a speed limit of 12 knots -- to which he clearly adhered -- but that from a defined point (Tower Bridge, I think) that limit was raised (I believe to 35 knots). He was even filmed on the radio asking the Port Authority if he could procede through the BArrier 'at speed' and was clearly given the go-ahead in reply.

It may all have been a televisual fib, of course, but it was something that they were at pains to point out in the programme.

---

Ah! Seems we're talking at cross purposes and about different skits.

My comments still stand and concur with yours.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote:

---

I do know the show approached the Port of London Authority to ask permission, as it would mean breaking the speed limit on parts of the river ... Not content the motoring show just did it anyway.

---

Something else that will need detailed fact checking, but thus sounds like an urban myth to me.

---

Seriously Hugh. I was very close to the PLA around that time. First heading up policy for the neighboring navigation authority (Environment Agency) and then running a not for profit that promoted water freight, of which the PLA were a lynchpin member. I discussed it and what to do about it at length with a number of their senior people. We even discussed it briefly with the DfT! Basically it was decided it would be counter productive to do anything because cult of Clarkson was too strong and the BBC were too powerful. True story but the bodies were long since buried. Nobody got hurt. But a lot of people got the wrong idea about how to navigate safely on the river through London. As I was myself spending public money trying to educate people about how to do it right and then take the resource of water transport seriously (benefits: less carbon, congestion and cost per tonne kilometer) I felt the incident rather personally.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Chaconne:

---

yes but..YES..but....I HAVE to contribute to Clarksons Cotswold Kingdom on threat of imprisonment!

---

No you don't HAVE to contribute to that entertaining sounding theme park (never been myself )!

The risk of imprisonment is only if you break the law of the land -- as it is for other laws. In this case, the current law states that to watch any TV on a set that receives broadcast signals you need a license.

However, you don't HAVE to watch TV - no one is forcing you to do that -- so you don't HAVE to contribute to all the things the license fee pays for (very little of which catually goes to Clarkson, in the grand scheme of things).

Now you may well believe that you should be able to watch any TV you like without having a license -- and many people clearly do, and with good reason -- but to do that you'll have to persuade your local MP to persuade Parliament that they should change the status quo come 2016 when the Charter is renegotiated. And I'm sure plenty of people are and will be trying to do that.

Quote:

---

BUT - T.G. is not schools, hospitals, the army, NHS etc etc - it is a cutural luxury, ephemera. Like film and music. Something you may want to pay for. A matter of taste. Yours, not mine.

---

Fair enough -- but is there not an argument, given that almost everybody watches a lot of Television of all kinds -- that it is something that should be supported for the 'greater good'? (I always hear that phrase as a chant from Hot Fuzz! ).

TV is a huge influence on people -- from the 'British' morals, ethics and behaviour codes introduced and repeated on the Beeb's Childrens' programmes (and which pretty much every kid in the country watches), to the programmes on nature, science, technical innovation, news, music and culture. The opportunity is there to help shape the nation in positive ways... which is precisely what the Reithian principles were all about.

No one else does anything like the Beeb's Proms season, or the live later with Jool's shows come to that. Surely these things are worth supporting?

Quote:

---

Oh, and with local government at least I get a vote.

---

As you do with HM's Government who will be shaping (or ripping up) the Charter in a couple of years.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound