Although I have to invest time studying the corporate structure and
the mechanism under the BBC works, I find it interesting that such
an important and trusted broadcasting corporation can be State
owned and still keep the level of quality it has.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Do you trust the BBS?
Is it impartial and trustworthy when it comes to criticism of the government?
Would you say is the most reliable source of information we have at hand nowadays?
Originally posted by SeitseI don't understand why there is a BBC unless for some nefarious reason. I'm going to look it up.
Although I have to invest time studying the corporate structure and
the mechanism under the BBC works, I find it interesting that such
an important and trusted broadcasting corporation can be State
owned and still keep the level of quality it has.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Do you trust the BBS?
Is it impartial and trustworthy when it ...[text shortened]... overnment?
Would you say is the most reliable source of information we have at hand nowadays?
- Joined
- 29 Aug 06
- Moves
- 6848
Originally posted by SeitseIt is much better than every US television news network. To learn anything important (news wise) in the US you must read newspapers and/or Internet (and then have you to be careful which ones).
Although I have to invest time studying the corporate structure and
the mechanism under the BBC works, I find it interesting that such
an important and trusted broadcasting corporation can be State
owned and still keep the level of quality it has.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Do you trust the BBS?
Is it impartial and trustworthy when it ...[text shortened]... overnment?
Would you say is the most reliable source of information we have at hand nowadays?
Although, CNN isn't too bad.
I used to like the BBC a lot, but it is of course impossible to be unbiased.
My biggest criticisms are the post-Kelly pandering to the government, the frivolous wasting of money on "specialist" programming and projects (poaching high-profile "stars" such as Graham Norton form other channels, paying them huge fees and desperately trying to find something for them to do), constant adverts for it's own channels and programmes, adverts masquerading as news items ("a new investigation has shown...watch Panorama later" on the 18:00 news, for example but breakfast news is worse).
Not to mention turning every brilliant Radio 4-BBC2 comedy into a BBC1 pile of crap as soon as it gets popular.
On the other hand, BBC2 is just about the only channel I watch (some Ch4 as well), and it is infinitely better than ITV.
It is very interesting to read all this comments, since quality is
supposed to be endorsed by private ownership, yet I find BBC
(as a non-Brit) quite trustworthy when it comes to coverage, variety,
and overall quality (let's leave content for later).
What are your thoughts on the quality? What's the BBC formula
to be public yet a leading media conglomerate at the same time,
constantly innovating it seems.
Please remember I am looking at BBC from outside, thus I don't
know if its overall attitude towards the UK government is independent.
Originally posted by SeitseOf programming or news?
What are your thoughts on the quality?
BBC1: utter crap - tries to compete with ITV for lowest-common-denominator light entertainment and still loses out. Full of hopeless talent shows involving ballroom dancing, singing or celebrities. Or all three.
News is okay, but it focuses on foreign or world news a lot more than other channels. Also, it tries to walk the tightrope of political correctness and ends up being criticised by all sides.
Originally posted by VargThat's very interesting. Of course (as a foreigner) I watch
Of programming or news?
BBC1: utter crap - tries to compete with ITV for lowest-common-denominator light entertainment and still loses out. Full of hopeless talent shows involving ballroom dancing, singing or celebrities. Or all three.
News is okay, but it focuses on foreign or world news a lot more than other channels. Also, it tries to walk the tightrope of political correctness and ends up being criticised by all sides.
BBC (the one we get here at Finland) precisely because of the
amount of world news. Would you say local news stay far behind
international when it comes to coverage, balance, quality, etc.?
Originally posted by SeitseIt is important to realise that the BBC you get in Finland, as here in Norway is very different than the BBC you get in the UK. In some respects the UK BBC is better and more complete but the news channels from the BBC are better abroad. When people talk of BBC news from the UK, they are generaly talking about the news programmes on BBC1 whereas abroad you're generally talking about the BBC News channel itself.
That's very interesting. Of course (as a foreigner) I watch
BBC (the one we get here at Finland) precisely because of the
amount of world news. Would you say local news stay far behind
international when it comes to coverage, balance, quality, etc.?
The BBC has always been an innovator. It created teletext for example. You may remember the BBC micro, a very sophistacated home computer for the time that had a built in assembler. It was a great machine. The BBC still does innovate but I feel it needs to focus more on popular programming than it used to, generally because the populous at large want popular programming and don't want to pay for costly documentaries like "the Blue Planet".
Originally posted by WheelyOh, so the one I get here is different from the original?
It is important to realise that the BBC you get in Finland, as here in Norway is very different than the BBC you get in the UK. In some respects the UK BBC is better and more complete but the news channels from the BBC are better abroad. When people talk of BBC news from the UK, they are generaly talking about the news programmes on BBC1 whereas abroad you' ...[text shortened]... t popular programming and don't want to pay for costly documentaries like "the Blue Planet".
Originally posted by SeitseWell, people from the UK generally don't watch BBC News channel. When they talk of the BBC news, they talk of the evening news broadcasts on BBC 1 which you can't get outside the UK, the extreme south of Norway and a small chunk of western Europe. To my mind, the BBC 1 news has become somewhat trivialised though at least they still try and pronounce things correctly and still have some very good heavy weight journalists.
Oh, so the one I get here is different from the original?
It does generally try and be impartial but itsn't really much better than the commercial news channels part from perhaps SKY news which is almost as low brow as it gets.
For entertainment broadcasts, you still find that most of the innovative stuff originates at the BBC as it always has, things like The Office, Hitch Hikers Guide and even earlier to Monty Python. They can do this precisely because they are publically funded and we see that when the free market is applied to broadcasting you mostly get junk and enormous swathes of advertising.
Originally posted by WheelyThe best daily 'news' channel in the UK is C4 7pm with Jon Snow et al.
Well, people from the UK generally don't watch BBC News channel. When they talk of the BBC news, they talk of the evening news broadcasts on BBC 1 which you can't get outside the UK, the extreme south of Norway and a small chunk of western Europe. To my mind, the BBC 1 news has become somewhat trivialised though at least they still try and pronounce things ...[text shortened]... ee market is applied to broadcasting you mostly get junk and enormous swathes of advertising.
This for two reasons:-
(a) It goes into much more depth then either the BBC or ITV news, and generally manages to induce senior figures from Government and public 'bodies' to appear on screen to answer charges made against them.
(b) The news readers themselves cover the latest weather forecasts, thus saving us from the antics of the exhibitionist hand-waving goons from the 'Met' Office who are allowed to make fools of themselves on both the alternative channels.