Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Number 9

New Top Gear

Recommended Posts

Guest
As I said above, I like Top Gear, but I''m capable of distinguishing between programmes and services that benefit me personally, and those which I feel the BBC should be focusing on. Never been a fan of period dramas either.

If the "populist" programmes fund the loss-making programmes, then what on Earth is the point of the license fee? Surely the whole point of the BBC is not to concern itself with making profits and obtaining the latest smash TV shows, but to focus on valuable public-service broadcasting for the British people?

Obviously we could argue about what one considers valuable until the cows come home, but the point remains that I don''t feel that it is anywhere near the BBC''s remit to focus on commercial successes, whilst also helping to fund the lifestyle of corporate bigwigs and the latest media luvvies with inflated salaries equivalent to many, many times those of the people who are collectively paying for it.

I would certainly not be against seeing a reduced license-fee, which covers the really good and essential services (such as local radio/TV, global news/radio, the World Service etc.), and then an additional optional top-up which people like you and I could pay if we so desired to watch the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ian"]As I said above, I like Top Gear, but I''m capable of distinguishing between programmes and services that benefit me personally, and those which I feel the BBC should be focusing on. Never been a fan of period dramas either.

If the "populist" programmes fund the loss-making programmes, then what on Earth is the point of the license fee?
Surely the whole point of the BBC is not to concern itself with making profits and obtaining the latest smash TV shows, but to focus on valuable public-service broadcasting for the British people?

Obviously we could argue about what one considers valuable until the cows come home, but the point remains that I don''t feel that it is anywhere near the BBC''s remit to focus on commercial successes, whilst also helping to fund the lifestyle of corporate bigwigs and the latest media luvvies with inflated salaries equivalent to many, many times those of the people who are collectively paying for it.

I would certainly not be against seeing a reduced license-fee, which covers the really good and essential services (such as local radio/TV, global news/radio, the World Service etc.), and then an additional optional top-up which people like you and I could pay if we so desired to watch the rest.[/quote]The "populist" programmes go TOWARDS funding the BBC. Those sales bring in some hundreds of millions of pounds. The licence fee brings in a few billion (£3.6bn at the last count).As to the rest, the BBC is not focusing on commercial successes. I wouldn''t like to quantify it, butI suspect a vast majority of what the BBC produces, for TV and radio, does not fit that description. And the moment the BBC stopped producing those populist programmes that do rake in cash certain politicians and rival media owners would have more ammuntion for their fight to destroy the organisation.You have your definition of "good and essential". I might even agree with it. But others would have very different definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed,

Besides the tv licence is good value for what you get.

The best value for money television in the World, and I''ve come across many of the ''others.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Agreed,

Besides the tv licence is good value for what you get.

The best value for money television in the World, and I''ve come across many of the ''others.''[/quote]

Really? You do realise that in many countries there is no fee required to own and watch television?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BBC provides so much more than TV and Radio. As mentioned there''s web content and the vast network of news reporters across the world. They also offer funding for local arts and start schemes like this, which are only possible when making those profits; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31834927

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Really? You do realise that in many countries there is no fee required to own and watch television?"

In most countries and they are flooded with advertisements.

Pay per view value puts the Beeb at number one. Compare with Sky over here. I pay £50 odd quid a month (my choice) and it has adverts.

The only thing wrong with the BBC system is the lack of an option to opt out. This isn''t right, IMO, but it appears to be a necessary requisite of things as they stand at the moment.

It''s actually a fee for owning a television rather than watching a television.

The overall result is pretty good though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Well I Never"][quote user="BroadstairsR"]Agreed,

Besides the tv licence is good value for what you get.

The best value for money television in the World, and I''ve come across many of the ''others.''[/quote]

Really? You do realise that in many countries there is no fee required to own and watch television?[/quote]

Yes and it shows in the quality of the programming and the quantity of the commercials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We''re in a minority, but there are a few countries with a system similar to ours

http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-197787,00.html

The Germans seem to come off worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Again, the BBC gets a lot right.

But, you have to question whether it is within its remit as a public-service broadcaster to spend x millions on individual salaries and programmes simply to attract viewing figures and commercial interest worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rock The Boat"][quote user="Well I Never"][quote user="BroadstairsR"]Agreed,

Besides the tv licence is good value for what you get.

The best value for money television in the World, and I''ve come across many of the ''others.''[/quote]

Really? You do realise that in many countries there is no fee required to own and watch television?[/quote]

Yes and it shows in the quality of the programming and the quantity of the commercials[/quote]

Does it? I agree that the BBC has a history of providing high quality programming and have enjoyed many of its products myself.

However, there seem to a fair amount of misguided opinions about how good the BBC really is in comparison to other international television networks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow this has gone serious, I just think Top Gear has run its course and the presenters and producers haven''t done a very good job!

As Bor and others said I don''t have to watch it so defo won''t be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a lot of the problem is that by watching a certain show for a prolonged amount of time endears you to the central characters. There was always going to be adverse reactions to the format once the personalities everybody was used to were replaced.

Dare I say it, but I guess that if the current guys had popularised Top Gear and now been replaced by Clarkson, Hammond and May, there would be a similar amount of negative comments about the new guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ian"]Again, the BBC gets a lot right.

But, you have to question whether it is within its remit as a public-service broadcaster to spend x millions on individual salaries and programmes simply to attract viewing figures and commercial interest worldwide.[/quote]When they''re earning revenue to fund more diverse content, and expand on-line platforms (which as Bor mentions above is simply world-class), I can''t see how anyone has a problem with it.Except for the tabloid "Fred Smith earns x million pounds of your hard earned TV licence! You should be outraged" garbage. As Purple describes above. The bigger picture is much more complex.As someone who didn''t grow up in this country, I love the BBC. I honestly don''t think you know how lucky you are. As government cuts continue to hit the BBC, them being able to self-find from their commercial arm will become much more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! There you have it, the people have chosen by not watching it.

Chris Evans quits and future of Co presenters in doubt as

viewing figures plummet.

Not surprised, it was shockingly bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Vanwink"]Poor show.[/quote]Indeed.  The series has been self-indulgent in the worst possible way, the humour forced and the many presenters lacking in the ability to sound convincing.  Clarkson and co were self indulgent, but it was always self-deprecating and nearly always funny.   The star in a "rally car" turned an ostensibly genuine competition for a fast time into a pantomime. The overly self-indulgent and embarrassingly contrived car jup at the end was just the final straw.    Am looking forward to seeing Clarkson and co on Amazon.   They are self-indulgent, contrived and embarrassing too, but somehow, they have the ability to take you along with them and that is what matters, in a show about cars most of us will never be able to afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don''t have Amazon but would really like to see the new series. Will have to tune in to some of Rons'' tutorials and try to sort it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, VW. By the way folks, Modbro have just done an update and it is now available to Chromecast! Awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...