|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 13:19:18 GMT
That is the BBCs problem, and will have to find another way to pay Gary Lineker one million pounds per year to talk about football. I'd say it's the Government's problem when they tell pensioners that they have to get broadband, start paying a new subscription and buy new set-top boxes to watch Call The Midwife or Bargain Hunt. If the BBC goes subscription, that closes down the whole Freeview network (which they maintain), so that stops free viewing of ITV, Channels 4 and 5 through an aerial. og suggested that "BBC1, BBC2 and 3 radio stations" will remain on the airwaves - well, that's what most people watch and listen to, so the subscription revenue from BBC Alba, S4C, Radio Cymru and the Asian Network will be tiny. So both the minority interests which only the BBC serves will vanish, and they won't have the revenue to support their existing output from that subscription revenue. Suggesting that News "may well stay free to access" is a pipe-dream when the BBC's income is going to collapse - BBC News is not going to exist in a way that can sustain a 24-hour news channel or regional broadcasts. Anyway, it's clear that the culture battle lines are already drawn and I know which side I'm on, all I'm saying is that there are a whole host of technical issues that make this far from straightforward. I have a Smart TV and all the streaming services, but sometimes on message boards like this, people underestimate the friction that might be caused to some of the more vulnerable members of our society, whom Nadine Dorries claims to be protecting (having removed their free access to BBC services) I didn't know the Freeview system was run by the BBC. If the licence fee going would effect a lot of other none BBC channels then I would like to know how. I have broadband but only the freeview channels and don't pay for any subscription services. Over the years going back to Mr Wilson, Maggie Thatcher, Neil Kinnock and in the last few years with Corbyn and Boris the amount of time I've heard the BBC is pro Labour or pro Tory I forget. Some of their news presenters we may well know what their politics are but they do seem impartial to me. A big rump of people in the country only really care about what is on BBC1 and BBC2. They put BBC3 online and I'm not sure if it is coming back to FV, BBC4 has some quality stuff which older people may enjoy. The kids channels are good for their age group but there are others outthere and kids have so many platforms these days to use. Radio 1 a shadow of itself from it's heyday, R2 resting home for former R1 DJs but still popular. R3 - elitist, R4 - the politicians like that, R5 effectively R2 from the 1980's. Other worldwide or minority interests your hard up family worrying about heating their homes don't care about. Your pensioners who like Daytime shows don't. The police have had budget cuts, the armed forces, gov depts have so why not look at the licence fee this way. If one party puts this in a manifesto we can give you £159 pound a year saving then other parties will have to look at it closely and come up with some other savings they can give people as her heat, tax etc is going up. Gary Lineker is an easy target as he is one of Beeb's highest paid people and this may be the issue. I doubt Jimmy Hill was ever on more than a Ronnie Barker back in the day. Paying mediocre talent too much money. Too many programmes the same. On a lighter note has anyone else noticed how BBC Political Correspondent Nick Eardley is a ringer for a young Stanley Baxter. The accent, face, slightly flaired nostrils even how the hair is parted. Stanley is still going at 95 years old but we have yet to see Nick impersonate the Queen!
|
|
1,849 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 17, 2022 13:56:57 GMT
|
|
894 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 17, 2022 14:07:58 GMT
Yes, I think the timing is very clear. I do wonder what the BBC is playing at at the moment though. It is showing a surprising lack of curiosity about where the stories are coming from - for example they had the Telegraph journalist who broke the story on, but didn't ask him the source. Is it Cummings' revenge? I'm sure a Paxman would have asked him that. And why now? Personally I think it serves the anti-control-measures faction very well indeed, and those who want Johnson gone so they can refresh the leadership in time for a general election. The BBC don't seem to care about this and are just going with it because, I think, they're still sore about Brexit and see it as revenge and can't see beyond that. There are other news stories going by the wayside as they focus on these so-called 'industrial scale' parties ('an atrocity!' one pundit claimed. Really? Come on!). Anyway, the BBC are dancing to the leakers' tune, the Tories will either get a shiny new leader and/or respond with a punishment beating for the BBC and safety controls will be lifted so more vulnerable people, like all the unvisited mums in care homes we keep hearing about, may die. I'm not sure I would normally expect one journalist to ask the other their source. It's not like any journalist worth their salt will reveal it. Given the BBC hasn't broken any of these stories and have generally been playing catch up with other parts of the media who have made as much of it, if not more, claiming that the BBC is doing it as revenge for Brexit is a bit of a stretch. It's not the BBC's job to provide cover for the government and follow whatever line they are pushing.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jan 17, 2022 14:33:13 GMT
And of course, all of this hinges on the Tories still being in power in 2027... They will be - we don’t have a viable alternative and that’s the saddest part about British politics right now. Of course we have viable alternatives, but part of the problem is that many of the people who vote Conservative won't consider an alternative. They tend to believe that anyone on the left would bring disaster and ruin despite the fact that this hasn't happened in the past, and they won't even look at the actual party policies. There's a very strong attitude of "No matter how bad my side is, my side must be the one that's right so anything else must be worse".
|
|
2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 17, 2022 14:46:23 GMT
It's not the BBC's job to provide cover for the government and follow whatever line they are pushing. My point is that right now they are following a line that some other Tories are pushing, via the Tory press. Who is drip-feeding this story out, and what's their motive, when it's someone within the Tory bunker leaking it? In the Labour years, we generally found out who (Whelan, Campbell etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 15:29:11 GMT
They will be - we don’t have a viable alternative and that’s the saddest part about British politics right now. Of course we have viable alternatives, but part of the problem is that many of the people who vote Conservative won't consider an alternative. They tend to believe that anyone on the left would bring disaster and ruin despite the fact that this hasn't happened in the past, and they won't even look at the actual party policies. There's a very strong attitude of "No matter how bad my side is, my side must be the one that's right so anything else must be worse". I don’t think it’s like that at all. The Conservatives and Labour are the only parties that will win an election outright, but Labour is losing support and votes - the SNP are taking them in Scotland and Labour isn’t filling anyone else with much confidence leading people to vote for the tories. Does anyone know what Labour stands for under Starmer? He’s been a terrible leader of the opposition thus far.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 17, 2022 17:42:27 GMT
I mean.... I'm an adult and don't watch CBeebies, but I love that I am able to help pay for Cbeebies to exist.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 17, 2022 17:59:06 GMT
Growing up, as I did in the 70s, kids tv was a couple of short pieces around lunchtime (in the old Listen with Mother slot I guess) and then from 3.45/4pm to 5.35pm
You then got Saturday morning tv for a few hours whether you were a Swap Shop or Tiswas fan
There might be a Sunday afternoon family drama adaptation or a Bank Holiday Disney Special. But that was about it outside of school holidays where you got the added bonus of things like Why Don't You...
I never felt that my development was hindered by not having more screen time opportunities.
I do understand that CBBC and CBeebies have their uses. But that level of programming provision is not essential to childhood development.
Gone are the days of the BBC producing educational shows for schools to show as part of lessons.
Gone indeed are the days of Open University being shown overnight on BBC2.
Things change. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse.
I am not sure that 2 channels of dedicated BBC programming for children is essential. Some might argue that too much screen time is not good for children.
It is good to have the debates and the discussions.
But the BBC has always been changing. And it will continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jan 17, 2022 18:15:02 GMT
That's a fair point about CBBC/CBeebies. Is it essential for two kids channels running all day? When I was a kid, you had your morning "before-school" kids shows, then your "after-school" kids shows from 3:30pm till 5pm and then Saturday morning. And it was enough. There were privately-owned channels on the market such as Disney/Nickelodeon etc if you reeeeally wanted all-day kids TV. I don't think it's necessary as a public service. And do we need more channels than BBC1, BBC2 and BBC News? The whole operation could be more effectively streamlined. The BBC should be a public service, not an all-out media empire.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 18:33:30 GMT
I thought when kids TV went onto it's own channel it needed additional content to replace it and almost marginalised those programmes. I agree that one channel for a mixture of ages should be enough. Didn't the old afternoon thread from Play School to Blue Peter used to run as a thread going up the age ranges. Some of my absolute TV heroes were from kids programmes.
I agreewith Sph it is a broadscaster not a multi media empire. If it wants to be that let it take commercial deals like ITV, C4 and C5 do.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jan 17, 2022 18:47:26 GMT
I thought when kids TV went onto it's own channel it needed additional content to replace it and almost marginalised those programmes. I agree that one channel for a mixture of ages should be enough. Didn't the old afternoon thread from Play School to Blue Peter used to run as a thread going up the age ranges. Some of my absolute TV heroes were from kids programmes. I agreewith Sph it is a broadscaster not a multi media empire. If it wants to be that let it take commercial deals like ITV, C4 and C5 do. The only problem with commercials is that programming would be dictated by the advertisers. What can sell the most. Would a commercial broadcaster make low key fare like Detectorists? Unlikely.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jan 17, 2022 19:41:57 GMT
The only problem with commercials is that programming would be dictated by the advertisers. What can sell the most. Would a commercial broadcaster make low key fare like Detectorists? Unlikely. There's also the problem that even if a show gets made, if it doesn't find an audience quickly it gets cancelled.
|
|
1,849 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 17, 2022 19:44:29 GMT
The backtracking begins, gone to where the other dead cats are buried, at least it got us talking about something other than parties, now Dom has provided some more ‘evidence’ to mull over the fun begins again.
Look out for Article 16 to be resurrected imminently as a bit of EU bashing is a firm favourite even though that dead cat must be bit putrid by now along with the immigration one that did not fly as well as anticipated today.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 17, 2022 20:11:37 GMT
Gone are the days of the BBC producing educational shows for schools to show as part of lessons. Gone indeed are the days of Open University being shown overnight on BBC2. Things change. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. I am not sure that 2 channels of dedicated BBC programming for children is essential. . Are you kidding?! Speak to any parent of school aged kids who had to homeschool last year - they’ll absolutely rave about how they relied on the BBC! They had curriculum-based content produced for kids before most of the schools had managed to provide anything other than a worksheet: www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/bbc-launches-biggest-education-offer-everKids doing their GCSEs even had content tailored for them by exam board! This is the sort of thing you won’t know about if you didn’t have kids or know anyone with kids, because most BBC content is ‘narrowcast’ instead of ‘broadcast’ - it’s tailored and targeted at the specific audience. The Open University partnership continues to this day, with course content linked to programming, but you’d only know it if you looked: connect.open.ac.uk/about/I can’t believe how many people on this thread the BBC’s educational work last year completely passed by. I have parent-friends who swear their sanity was saved by it!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 17, 2022 21:04:38 GMT
I don't have kids but I have young nephew and nieces and being able to switch on children's tv at pretty much any hour can be vital. It's the difference sometimes between having some kind of calm that other people can work/house work in and not. It's the different between screaming kids and not. And please don't tell me they just need to be better brought up, tv is a life saver for parents.
I don't think comparisons from when we were kids decades ago works either, the way people live, the numbers of families where both parents work, how we interact is just too different to compare.
And A channel doesn't work, children want choices just like adults, why should be satisfied with having only one option, or there only being something age appropriate at one time of day that may or may not work for their set up.
Yes if you can afford prime, disney etc that gives you a whole load of other options but if your family can't, what then?
I didn't realise freeview basically ran off the license fee too and access to other channels. My mum can just about what out how to turn the tv on and switch channels. There's no way she'd cope if she had to login, download an app. I know there are plenty of older people who are very tech savy but she isn't one of them. She doesn't have much disposal income but watching the racing, or cricket or something is one of the few things she can do and enjoy. She's a through and through Tory voter and will I expect me thinking yes they should do away with a fee (not that she pays it herself) but that's because she won't have a clue what the implications would mean.
|
|
2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 17, 2022 21:19:27 GMT
I don't have kids but I have young nephew and nieces and being able to switch on children's tv at pretty much any hour can be vital. Does it need to be two live broadcasting channels though? You can access hundreds of CBBC and CBBees programmes on demand on iplayer, which you can access through most TV sets now. I'd rather kids learned to draw or sculpt or read though!
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 17, 2022 21:53:33 GMT
Kids also learn to read, and draw, and still ‘sculpt’ with play-doh.
Back in ‘my day’ kids would be chucked out into the garden (which many don’t now have) or the streets (which are now too busy with traffic) to play when parents needed some peace and quiet. And that was back when women left work when they had kids more or less by default.
Nowadays mum is probably working at least part-time, and you put them in front of CBeebies while you have a work meeting over Teams.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 22:43:20 GMT
I don't have kids but I have young nephew and nieces and being able to switch on children's tv at pretty much any hour can be vital. Does it need to be two live broadcasting channels though? You can access hundreds of CBBC and CBBees programmes on demand on iplayer, which you can access through most TV sets now. I'd rather kids learned to draw or sculpt or read though! CBeebies and CBBC have different demographics, and CBeebies timeshares with BBC4 anyway. Any adult that has kids, looks after kids or knows people with kids knows how vital these channels are. As pointed out the BBC were fantastic with education last year, but I’d also like to point out they’ve spent over a decade introducing children to BSL, teaching it and normalising it. There’s also the fact the BBC spends a pittance on these channels - around about 3% of its collected revenue (from licence fees). When you factor in licensing and merchandising, it probably pays for itself - or at least more so than any other BBC output. I know many parents who really, truly value the Bedtime Hour - In The Night Garden and Bedtime Stories is such a winning combination at getting kids settled down and ready for bed. Night Garden only ever had 100 episodes and has been on TV every evening for fifteen years, whilst Bedtime Stories has more celebrities than an episode of Graham Norton. Don’t even get me started on Mr Tumble!
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 17, 2022 22:58:29 GMT
My mother was working at least part time from the time my little sister and I were in school. My grandmother who was a headteacher took care of us through the school holidays.
I cooked the family meal every night from the age of 13 because both parents were out working full time.
The 70s and 80s were not just stay at home mums by any means.
Yes, the BBC did step up with some educational content during lockdown. That is to be applauded.
The link with the OU is far more imprecise than it once was.
But in a multichannel era with a range of delivery platforms, do we need two dedicated BBC channels for younger viewers? I am not sure that we do. I am quite happy to see a reduction in repeat of Homes under the Hammer or other things to see more BBC 1/2 programming for younger people.
I am not saying we need to return to the days where C4 only started broadcasting at 4pm with Countdown or the BBC shutting down at midnight with the National Anthem.
But it is right to look at the whole of the BBC operation to see what is essential, what is desirable and what could be delivered by other broadcasters in other ways.
Do we need BBC3 to return as a broadcast channel? I am not convinced.
Do we need so many local radio stations? Again my experience of them is that a more regional approach might be more appropriate
Asking questions allows proper consideration. It doesn't amount to prejudging thr outcome or seeking the destruction of the BBC
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 17, 2022 23:30:43 GMT
But you still need either broadband or a modern enough tv to access iplayer.
I'd say my nephew and niece watch a fair amount of tv but they also spend a fair amount of time sliding in mud, doing very unflattering portraits, run riot with their invisible babies etc. I'm sure there are kids that get sat in front of tv too much but there are plenty who have a balanced mix of inputs and whose parents/elder siblings etc value a moment to do the washing up or their homework.
Was going to argue the night garden can't possibly have been on that long (as it still seems vaguely recent) and then realised I know it from when my eldest nieces were small and they are 13 and 15 now. Eek.
please don't get started on Mr tumble, never a fan!
I'm not sure arguing to keep the bbc as it currently is precluded any changes to individual channels etc does it? Cos the loss of an odd thing or two is not really what's on the table.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2022 23:31:29 GMT
My mother was working at least part time from the time my little sister and I were in school. My grandmother who was a headteacher took care of us through the school holidays. I cooked the family meal every night from the age of 13 because both parents were out working full time. The 70s and 80s were not just stay at home mums by any means. Yes, the BBC did step up with some educational content during lockdown. That is to be applauded. The link with the OU is far more imprecise than it once was. But in a multichannel era with a range of delivery platforms, do we need two dedicated BBC channels for younger viewers? I am not sure that we do. I am quite happy to see a reduction in repeat of Homes under the Hammer or other things to see more BBC 1/2 programming for younger people. I am not saying we need to return to the days where C4 only started broadcasting at 4pm with Countdown or the BBC shutting down at midnight with the National Anthem. But it is right to look at the whole of the BBC operation to see what is essential, what is desirable and what could be delivered by other broadcasters in other ways. Do we need BBC3 to return as a broadcast channel? I am not convinced. Do we need so many local radio stations? Again my experience of them is that a more regional approach might be more appropriate Asking questions allows proper consideration. It doesn't amount to prejudging thr outcome or seeking the destruction of the BBC There is nothing wrong with asking questions but you must listen to the answers. A number of people here have commented how the BBC children’s output is essential and you’ve still come along and said you don’t think it is. But therein lies the grander problem - too many people think they know best based on nothing but their personal opinions. The BBC offers a vast array of content that not everything is going to appeal to everyone and everyone is going to suggest we lose what they don’t mind losing (e.g. Homes Under The Hammer) as a way forward. My personal preference would be for the BBC to give up coverage of all sporting events. It will free up a big budget, Gary will be gone and Eastenders won’t be moved around to accommodate yet another football match. But clearly that isn’t feasible as sport has a huge audience and I accept that. This is why I don’t believe the license fee will be abolished - there isn’t really a workable alternative. No other service caters for people of all ages. The Radio Times posted a breakdown of the license fee back in 2018 (per month): Television: £6.92 Radio: £2.17 BBC World Service: £1.24 Other services and production costs: £0.80 BBC Online: £1.08 Licence fee collection and other costs: £0.33 £7 is comparable to other online services and it’s worth noting that ITV does in fact offer an advert free subscription at £4 a month on its catch-up service. £2.17 for radio is an utter steal frankly and BBC4 is easily worth that. www.radiotimes.com/tv/how-much-does-each-bbc-tv-and-radio-channel-cost-to-run/amp/
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 18, 2022 0:29:30 GMT
Listening to the answers doesn't mean I have to accept them. Yes, we all have different experiences of the BBC and the various services.
What is hard to deny is the fact that the BBC is no longer the dominant force it once was.
The days of a soap opera getting 20 million plus viewers for a Christmas episode are long gone.
ITV has suffered a similar decline
Our TV consumption habits have changed and there is no turning back the clocks.
The BBC does continue to represent reasonable value but that is not a reason for the funding model that might have been appropriate in the 1960s to be retained or for the BBC to continue to as it is.
Sport is an interesting one. I think a dedicated UK sports channel may well be a good way to go. The BBC might be the right host for that. But the compromise might be giving up all sport on BBC1 and 2 and for the new channel to take the place of BBC3 or 4.
The overwhelming majority of people here cherish the BBC. But it is not perfect. It should change to reflect better the way we consume media now.
Those changes won't please everyone. We will all be disappointed to a greater or lesser extent. But the BBC will evolve and survive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2022 1:01:58 GMT
The BBC continues to dominate actually: www.thinkbox.tv/research/barb-data/top-programmes-report/In Week 01 it had the top three most watched shows in the UK, with Death in Paradise pulling in an audience share of 41% and 8.1m viewers. If you look through the list of the 50 most watched shows, you can clearly see just how diverse the BBC’s output continues to be. Soaps used to get 20m viewers back when you could count the the amount of tv channels you had on one hand. They may not be the water cooler topic of choice anymore, but most BBC drama is - I’m sure most people have heard talk of ‘Four lives’ over the last week.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 18, 2022 1:44:12 GMT
www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-viewing-summary-new/ is where I found the figures for audience size and it surprised me somewhat It is clear that the market is very fragmented and people are consuming content from a whole raft of providers There are no easy answers and only difficult questions But I still contend that the BBC must continue to change and adapt. And that the current funding arrangements have to evolve alongside that. Should BBC Parliament be funded directly by the state? It is essential for the Commons and the Lords to be broadcast for free. But it need only be a simple stream and could easily be run from the Parliamentary estate rather than as part of the BBC The World Service used to be funded (at least in part I believe) by the FCO. I think that is a model that should not have been changed. In the light of other comments I looked more closely into Cbeebies and I was impressed at how many countries broadcast that content. That seems to make it more of a success story than I had appreciated. I hope that all the revenue comes back into BBC coffers to support the organisation. Does that mean it should not be the subject of re-examination? No. It has a huge digital audience meaning that parents/guardians can almost always access the content that best suits the needs/mood of their child. The concept of a broadcast schedule is diminishing in popularity and the ability to watch a particular episode over and over and over again at the press of a button and at a time of your choosing is something that many now enjoy.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 18, 2022 2:05:15 GMT
And moreover what would become of Elaine Paige on Sunday. That is worth every penny of the 43 pence a day.
|
|
2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 18, 2022 9:05:28 GMT
I don't think the BBC should do away with childrens' TV. I just don't see the need to retain three live channels for it when most of the content can be accessed through iplayer. Even if you have a pretty ancient TV (we have), you can buy a Firestick or similar for under £20 to enable it. If you get one with an Alexa (under £30) you don't even have to push any buttons so surely even the most time-poor parent could say Alexa, play in the night garden or Tom Hardy reading a story or whatever. Personally, I think they should go back to scheduling children's TV like they used to, and put it on BBC2. To have it running constantly sends the message from an early age that being glued to the TV is a great lifestyle which of course is a habit TV/social media makers want to create (the 'attention economy') - hence the default way streaming services begin the next episode immediately (you have to manually root through settings to turn that off). It's like the giant crisp packet / mega bucket fast food theory. If you break it into smaller packages, psychologically you pause and think do I really want to go on eating this or should I do something else now?
I'd also add that, despite there being so much TV on there for children, it's mostly rather samey visually and in tone. There's nothing with the sort of haunting melancholy or visual style of Noggin the Nog or Bagpuss.
|
|
2,548 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 18, 2022 9:47:58 GMT
Should BBC Parliament be funded directly by the state? It is essential for the Commons and the Lords to be broadcast for free. But it need only be a simple stream and could easily be run from the Parliamentary estate rather than as part of the BBC They tried that. It launched as The Parliamentary Channel and went bust, resulting in its takeover by the BBC. All the original programming has been cancelled from it now so all it shows is live and recorded footage of the Commons, Lords and devolved parliaments. Maybe Parliament should pay the BBC to broadcast it as a public service but I can't see that happening in this environment. (Nor can I see World Service funding going back to the FCO given it was this government that said the BBC had to pay for it)
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 18, 2022 12:59:17 GMT
Should BBC Parliament be funded directly by the state? It is essential for the Commons and the Lords to be broadcast for free. But it need only be a simple stream and could easily be run from the Parliamentary estate rather than as part of the BBC They tried that. It launched as The Parliamentary Channel and went bust, resulting in its takeover by the BBC. All the original programming has been cancelled from it now so all it shows is live and recorded footage of the Commons, Lords and devolved parliaments. Maybe Parliament should pay the BBC to broadcast it as a public service but I can't see that happening in this environment. (Nor can I see World Service funding going back to the FCO given it was this government that said the BBC had to pay for it) I agree that it is unlikely but it is how things ought to be. The BBC shouldn't have to pay for these things under the current funding set up or anything similar
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2022 14:48:53 GMT
BBC Parliament doesn’t need broadcasting live, but it costs so very little I don’t see the harm in retaining it. But it could move online and be replaced by a live radio broadcast instead I guess.
What I will say is that I never used it until Brexit happened, and watching as debates and votes happened around the deals did justify its existence somewhat.
|
|
2,979 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 18, 2022 15:13:35 GMT
BBC Parliament doesn’t need broadcasting live, but it costs so very little I don’t see the harm in retaining it. But it could move online and be replaced by a live radio broadcast instead I guess. What I will say is that I never used it until Brexit happened, and watching as debates and votes happened around the deals did justify its existence somewhat. I think radio coverage of politics is better than TV. The TV programmes think they need to be knockabout entertainment to stop you flipping channels and have the same guests on over and over again, talking over each other. Radio seems generally more measured and precise.
|
|