Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 7th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

BBC running out of ideas, viewers fear



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 December 2007
THE BBC has fewer fresh and original programmes than ever before, viewers believe.
Audiences want to see more new ideas at a time when the BBC plans to save money by cutting the number of programmes it makes.

The Corporation's own research has revealed the public harks back to a past in which BBC1 and BBC2 were the home of qual
ity television.

Nowadays, the BBC is increasingly dominated by a "clutter" of entertainment, celebrity, reality shows and soaps, viewers say.

The research shows 72 per cent of people believe it important that the BBC "has lots of fresh and new ideas" but only 51 per cent feel it does.

"There is a small but significant perception among the public that there is less distinctive TV on the BBC than there once was," the BBC says in the report published today.

"People felt that in the past, it was easy for the BBC to claim, reasonably, that it had real range and depth across its two television channels.

"Overall, BBC1 was clearly seen to be providing quality entertainment and BBC2 was seen to be providing quality factual programming. This was felt to be distinctive from what was on offer elsewhere.

"However, the growth of multi-channel television has complicated things. People feel the explosion of choice has provided an alternative supply of range and depth.

"Having said that, TV generally is felt to be increasingly dominated by big entertainment shows, 'ratings chasers', celebrity, soap wars, makeover and reality TV. The BBC is felt to have succumbed to this trend to a certain extent."

Viewers praised some BBC shows, among them Strictly Come Dancing, The Apprentice and Doctor Who, while Tribe was given as an example of what the BBC does best.



The full article contains 297 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 December 2007 9:31 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The BBC
 
1

Abel Magwitch,

18/12/2007 01:16:16
The problem with TV these days is the F- word. No, it is not THAT word, it is "Fragmentation". There are so many channels that the budgets are spread too thinly to support quality programming. How odd that as the technology improves, the quality of what is shown goes downhill. Television has outgrown itself.
2

Scullion,

Canada 18/12/2007 02:16:17
#1, True. I just read that in the 60's, a single episode of the "The Beverly Hillbillies" brought in more viewers than todays top 3 TV shows on commercial television (few people watch public TV over here).
Mind you, "The Beverly Hillbillies" is like Masterpiece Theatre compared to some of the dross that passes for entertainment on this box nowadays.
3

Guga II,

Rockall 18/12/2007 04:09:49
The EBC ran out of fresh ideas years ago. Even their news service is like a Punch and Judy show, and totally anglocentric.

It's long past time that they scrapped the iniquitous television tax, and made the EBC compete on the open market.
4

TSynicto the core,

Bellshill 18/12/2007 11:38:47
On behalf of millions of viewers, not only to the BBC but to all channels, may I use this comment space to plead for a halt to the awful background cacophony of screeching fiddles and banging drums that completely ruin documentaries. Please.Please.Please.
5

Calum Crubag,

18/12/2007 12:42:59
There's far too many English period dramas for a start. Don't the other 'British' nations have histories?
6

Kipling,

@Doomraycathodetube 18/12/2007 14:36:36
I don't watch television, except & rarely at relations' houses. So when I watch it , it's like seeing a kind of flashy technologically-smart array of brainless chatter & images on parade. I've noticed the following:
--quiz show after quiz show, particularly in the afternoons. This, I'm told by someone who worked for television, is because only the old and housewives watch at this time & therefore the budget for morning/afternoon programmes is in terms of pennies.
--The better known programmes like Panorama, Omnibus, Horizon, have all been downmarketed. The BBC used to pride itself in educating the public, ie. setting an intellectual agenda higher than the average university student could manage. Now it's trying to appeal to the lower uni - gentrified population denominator.
--Incisive political programmes (including the above) have lost their edge or been stopped. I had to deal with those who had just left school sometime ago and I found them pig-ignorant about basic international affairs. Ask anyone south of the border about Scottish issues and you'll get a blank face! Political acumen has disappeared and Labour-party voters given pride of place in the journalist role of honour, sorry, but I cringe when I watch Jon Snow. The police knocked down one of the best female interrogators & now we're left with paper dolls.
--News has lost its seriousness. It needs visual 'excitement' all the time, even though the illustrations may be library or irrelevant to the story. As said above, the kind of 'punch & judy' show is quite out of place. In the old days the newscasters just read the news, didn't pretend to be actively reporting it, and if there was relevant usually bravely gained footage (excluding the invented stuff from N.Ireland, etc. which came in later) it was shown and not always at the immediate time of reporting. Okay, time delivery has been improved but at the expense of quality. UK news is also censored. Turkish satellite news stories of the last gulf war
7

Kipling,

@Doomraycathodetube 18/12/2007 14:38:57
were much more terrifying without glorification.
--In plays/dramas/soaps, normative violence and immature socialisation is the rule. I saw something called 'Holby City'. I would give a mean mental age of 14-15 years old for the characters in that soap. Is this REALLY how professionals in a hospital behave? God help us. Another program ?'Spooks' has police violence as the norm if the security of the country is at issue. So what has democracy got to offer that's different to the police behaviour elsewhere? There's a hidden agenda here with fake targets introduced to normalise population attitudes towards government violence.
--No politically incorrect humour that I've witnessed (admittedly on the rare occasions). Anyone seen the Ayatollah Khomaini song from 'Not the 9 oclock news' (which had an open-door script policy), with Pamela Stephenson, etc.? It might look dated now but I can't imagine a similar sketch which Britons would sing next day in the office. Would any sketch mock Blair's 'catholicism'?

I don't recall high budgets meaning better quality. High budgets simply go into more classy costumes, sets & locations which deprives the population of imagination effort. HD tv is the worst thing to happen to quality content. Did Shakespeare have classy sets? No, some guy just came on with a poster telling the audience they were in France, or wherever. And if he had to pay his actors/broadcasters the rate that television has to fork out now for its principals would any of Shakespeare's shows have got off the ground?

Lastly! the way people are employed in television has changed over the last 20 years. Short term contracts which force editorial submissiveness (ie, don't criticise the editor if you want your contract renewed), competition for jobs, promotion on the basis of face value, etc. etc.
8

Montague Q X Burton,

18/12/2007 18:18:36
Hahahaha running out!

When did they last have an idea that was audience satisfaction orientated opposed to ratings?
9

Kipling,

18/12/2007 23:54:37
Just checked out the history of broadcasting. The following seem to be the key dates for the descent into the mudheap (from the Offcom site). And I haven't included the constant change of licenced independent stations.

1972
Government lifts restrictions on broadcasting hours

1974
IBA changes basis of exchequer levy from ad revenue to profits

1977
Report of Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, chaired by Lord Annan, recommends setting up BCC and joint BBC/ITV audience measurement system

1979
IBA given responsibility for fourth channel

1981
BARB (British Audience Research Bureau) created
Five companies authorised to provide satellite TV services
First subscription TV service begins, Starview

1982
Channel 4 & S4C begin broadcasting
Launch of Satellite Television, later Sky Channel (Europe’s first satellite channel)

1983
Breakfast TV begins broadcasting: TVam

1984
Swindon Cable the first cable service licensed,

1985
Cable Authority established, advertises first five franchises – Aberdeen cable is the first to start operations

1987
IBA announce that 25% of ITV programmes must be produced by independents (BBC agree the same)
Broadcasting hours extended: Thames TV first to go 24-hour
Advertising minutage extended from seven to seven and a half minutes an hour

1988
Astra satellite launches
All ITV companies are now providing a 24-hour service

1989
Sky television launches four-channel service using the Astra satellite

1992
ITC advertise C5 licence, only one application


and so on

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.