´óÏó´«Ã½

Hi

I think Newsnight should do a programme on the way the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is being dumbed down.

Tonight a programme about people losing their virginity was shown (after Newsnight). It was about titillation (disguised in documentary form). The sort of programme that wouldn't have been broadcast, by previous Director Generals.

Now it is NOT the programme I object to. But the fact that it was broadcast by the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

I have more respect for people on other channels showing these types of programmes - because they have to, at least, answer, ultimately, to share holders. But the broadcasters of this programme have to answer, ultimately, to viewers.
Clearly, the people who run ´óÏó´«Ã½2 are more concerned about short-term ratings over long-term respect and loyalty.

I am sure many people watched that programme and didn't think too much about it. But whenever the future of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ comes into question, people are going to think (taking into account a broad range of programmes): mm, well, I don't think there is very much difference between the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and commcercial TV. Therefore why should the ´óÏó´«Ã½ receive special treatment (and it wouldn't be the viewers' fault for thinking this but the ´óÏó´«Ã½ itself).

What kind of a broadcasting organization is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ meant to be now. I thought it was meant to be about (innocent) entertainment - about being innovative, interesting, original, creative, inspiring and so on. 'Virgin Memories' left me feeling desperate and angry.

I am a big supporter of the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Because of all that it has achieved in the past. And because of what it has the potential to achieve. But, clearly, there are senior people in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ who have no idea about what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is meant to be about / or, at least, lack the imagination and strength of character to broadcast the sort of programmes that viewers want, expect - and pay for.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been ripping people off (telephone scandals). It failed (and deservedly so) to land more money (again, I am a big fan of the idea of public broadcasting, independent of commercial interests - and support larger licence fees if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is deserving of it). And it has been dumbing, even more, in recent years.

I think it is time for heads to roll. Starting off with those in senior positions in ´óÏó´«Ã½2 (and I will be really p****d off if this post doesn't get posted).

When will the government admit that we cannot afford wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those countries which cannot afford to take us on militarily are now defeating us using oil as a weapon. So many people have been killed and injured in these expeditions and for what? The worst sitiuation is in Iraq. Why are we staying? What exactly is being achieved now that the Americans are in Basra. As we work out exactly how much this is costing people will turn around asking why is our country being impoverished whilst money is being 'wasted' on these wars. I beg Gordon Brown to do the decent thing and get us out. Finally, there must be a public inquiry into why we went to war in Iraq and what exactly was being done in our name. Please I don't want any more blood on my hands.

NOTHING LEFT

joshuamoran, #1 above, makes a restrained comment on what amounts to the end of the road for Britain. We have sold out to Europe (run by a central body that seems to have been corrupt from its inception). We have a system of government – Westminsterism – inhabited by a very strange sub-set of humanity playing (inept) games with our lives at home and with our country abroad. That leaves our national broadcaster – OUR ´óÏó´«Ã½ – (what happened to that slogan?) for us to turn to, for a grounding in reality.
But, increasingly, as joshuamoran has addressed, ´óÏó´«Ã½ output is debased; not just dumbed down, but eviscerated. The questions: ‘Who is doing this?’ and: ‘Why?’ remain unanswered. It is so depressing to hear our ‘Word Service’ – Britain speaking to the world, OUR FLAGSHIP BROADCASTER - open up with enough raucous racket to make even Radio 5 listeners wince. I have said before: blogging is like shouting in a bucket – then ‘they’ take your bucket away. That is the measure of my desperation and, I suspect, that of joshuamoran. Hello ´óÏó´«Ã½ – is there anybody there?

Barrie

I think there is lots left. I am not a pessimist. The reason why I write to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is because, I believe, if enough people make a noise - and make a sensible noise (not that I do, necessarily) then someone might listen.

The problem with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is quite simple, in my view:

There are too many people in the organization who don't understand the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or who don't have the imagination and strength of character to implement the sort of television that license payers want, expect and pay for.

How many in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ now really care about programmes that are interesting, inspiring, creative, original, thought-provoking, and so on. A lot may talk about it. But, clearly, the people in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ who broadcast that programme last night where clearly out of touch.

The fact is that lots of people would love to see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ disappear. For example, lots of licence payers see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ as being indistinguishable from commerical TV (therefore why should the ´óÏó´«Ã½ be treated with special treatment)? Then there is the pressure from the commerical broadcasters. And people from within parliament too - both Tories and one or two Labour members too. I think even Jeremy Paxman suggested that the licence fee should be dropped (I think, perhaps, he could clarify that). Mark Thompson failed to get an increase in the licence fee. Not surprising.

The big picture is that if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ carries on broadcasting c**p like that last night then it won't be around much longer. That is my real point. And that would be a shame because the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has broadcast great programmes in the past. And because of its uinque set up (not being answerable to share holders) can do the same in the future.

Again, I am an optimist not a pessimist. But I am, also, a relaist (I hope). And the reality is that if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ carries on like this, then it won't be around for many more years to come. Yes it might still be called the ´óÏó´«Ã½. But the big difference is that it would be a private commercial company answerable to share holders only. It would be like something between ITV / Channel 4 / Channel 5 / Sky (whoopeee).

Having lived in America, I don't want this country going further down the dumbed-down TV route. TV can have an insidious affect on people. We need a strong ´óÏó´«Ã½ to set standards. Not just that. But, also, to just to make and broadcast great programmes.

If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (i.e Mark Thompson) doesn't get a grip, then the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will be privatized, and who knows - maybe we will see naked ladies reporting the news items, instead of Jeremy Paxman and co (great fun for one or two episodes, maybe - but I want more than just titillating / sensationalistic TV (I can get that on other channels - porn channel, even - that is my choice). But I, also, want substance. And only a public broadcaster, financed by a licence fee and free of commercial pressures and share-holder accountability can achieve that.

Thompson and co just have to realize that they can't pull the wool over people's eyes with short-term ratings over long-term respect and loyalty. I don't want them to lose their jobs. But at the same time I don't want the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to be privatized. If they carry on like this then there is no other alternative but for them to go.

TWO FEW TO MENTION

Pleased to meet you joshuamoran. I am in broad agreement with your #4 Only one quibble really: The ultimate optimist is a pessimist who won't give up.
PS I am not sure about Paxman's qualities.

Barrie

You too.

'I feel that life is divided into the horrible and the miserable. That's the two categories. The horrible be like, I don't know, terminal cases, you know, and blind people, crippled. I don't know how they get through life. It's amazing to me. And the miserable is everyone else. So you should be thankful that you're miserable, because that's very lucky, to be miserable' - Woody Allen

Apologies by the way: didn't mean to imply you were a pessimist! But I just wanted to make point that I am not about seeing all that is bad about the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (as I have said the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has achieved great things - and has the pontential to continue to achieve great things). Nor do I want to appear as if I am trying to stop people watching s*x on TV (if people choose to pay for porn / soft porn, or just watch titillation on a commercial channel - paid for by advertising - that is their choice) - but not the ´óÏó´«Ã½ putting on programmes of titillation with tax payers' money).

Paxman and Newsnight aren't that important in the big scheme of things. If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (Mark Thompson) carries on as it is at the moment - dumbed down TV, telephone scandals and so on - then it will, eventually, be privatized. And programmes such as Newsnight would continue to exist, no doubt, but things would be very different (who knows, someone like Murdoch could become owner) - so the same in name but not in values. But it isn't just about Newsnight. It is, also, about comedy, documentaries, drama and so on.

Things started to go down hill, I think, in an important way, under Lord Birt. He achieved some things. But it was the dumbing-down of TV, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ becoming more about empire-building than creating quality TV, that he is remembered for. Thompson has just carried on in this vein. He isn't as bad as Birt. But Thompson has done little, I think, to suggest to me, at least, that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is much different under him than it was under Lord Birt.

I think Thompson has done more damage to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ than help it in the long-term

- failed to get increase in licence fee
- telephone scandals
- more dumbing down of TV

Just go to his personal ´óÏó´«Ã½ webpage and you will see a section on his achievements over ratings.
I quote:

'As Controller of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Two from 1996 to 1998 he saw the channel retain its share of viewing at a time of increased competition, rising from 11.2% in 1995 to 11.6% in both 1996 and 1997 and retaining a highly competitive 11.3% share in 1998'

It is incredible. Thompson's personal website talks about 'competition'. But the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has no competition because it is a public broadcaster. It is not meant to be competiting with commercial channels. Incredible I think. And just look at the language regarding ratings. Thompson might be a clever man. No doubt a clever broadcaster. But he should be in commercial broadcasting - not the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Thompson and co are all about short-term ratings as opposed to being all about the quality of programmes and their effect on the long-term respect and loyalty of viewers (yes, they may talk about it but it is just talk at the end of the day).

(and he failed to get increase in licence fee because, I think - and as do many others - the real reason being - that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is too much like a commercial broadcaster).

Being an optimistic (as much as I love Woody Allen, I don't share his sense of pessimism ... ) I think that there is far more to life than the ´óÏó´«Ã½! But by the same token, being an optimistic, I think that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does have a promising future, if only those at the top began to show a bit of understanding about what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and their viewers are really about - or, at least if they understand this, to demonstrate this - to demonstrate some imagination and strength of character. If not then they should go.

If you or anyone else feels / thinks the same as me, then I urge you / them to write into the ´óÏó´«Ã½ now - and voice your concerns. Write lots of letters. Be a complete pain. At the end of the day it is Thompson and co who are running down the ´óÏó´«Ã½. And I think people should do what they can to stop this.

EXCELLENCE AND ELEGANCE

I think the fault might lie in ourselves joshuamoran. The trouble with democratic righteousness is it doesn't cater for minorities but is nevertheless regarded as a given good. Anyway, I really doubt whether the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or any other body responds to letters.

Excellence, for it's own sake, would appear to be an outmoded concept. By the same token, I advocate elegant sourcing of energy over brute/dirty techniques followed by a clean-up but it is not regarded as a valid stance in political ecoland.

But the elegant approach, in practical matters, ranks with honour and integrity in social ones. I doubt it is on the curriculum. It is certainly not taught by example from on high.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The credit crunch together with the passing of a conventional oil production peak signals the need for a fresh look at recent government initiatives.

New car registrations peaked in 2003, possibly due to congestion reducing use, but this trend will accelerate with rising fuel prices. So apart from a modicum of de-bottlenecking, no major road road expansion is needed.

The proposed new runways at Stansted and Heathrow are clearly no longer necessary. Terminal 5 will soon suffice and the old terminals can be demolished. Attendance at Olympics 2012 will be poor - it will cost too much to fly in. Time for a pruning of facilities there.

Due to the use of diesel for civil works, the costs of the nuclear new build from 2013 will be astronomical as will the uranium from ever leaner ores. Without subsidy, finance for the new fleet will not be forthcoming.

Motor and airframe manufacturing will be the first casualties.

The re-think has been done by Rob Hopkins and the Transition Town movement.
Relocalisation is now the "nice" alternative - fortunately it has already started in Totnes, spreading to Lewes and Lampeter.
Community self-sufficiency and "energy descent" are the new political slogans. We will get to know the neighbours as we work together for survival.

Will Brown, Cameron and Clegg be able to adjust to new realities?