As for BBC Three it is a million miles better than most of the shite on cable. There are dozens of channels which I never watch - absolute rubbish full of endless ads.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
iPlayer via Virgin cable has UHD for a fair few shows now.
I’ve seen quite a few in UHD through Virgin cable. They tend to do them in UHD when the show suits it I think.
That is exactly my link. That is tiny list in 2022. It isn't about when it suits, it is as much who made it e.g. The Tourist was made with HBO. HBO will insist on 4k. 9/11: Inside the President's War Room was made in conjunction with Apple+.
The destruction of Russian war equipment continues...
"#Ukraine: 2 days ago, the Operational Command "East" of the Ukrainian Army posted video that claimed to show "over 40" Russian vehicles destroyed by Ukrainian Artillery fire on a Russian rear base.
We did not publish it, as we couldn't verify the claim or the target. However...
It actually turns out that this claim was legitimate, with at least 35 vehicles totally destroyed or damaged; mostly supply or fuel trucks, but with BMP/T-72 variant also. This is a serious blow."
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
Sorry but for most people and indeed most content 4k and proper HDR aren't worth the very significant additional costs.
Firstly because most people really wouldn't care and except for sport and for Premium Drama 4K and proper HDR just isn't required.
Er, what “significant extra costs” UHD TVs are standard nowadays.
1080p tv's are very much in the minority now and normally the small sized ones. I won't be surprised if all the major brands just stop selling any shortly. I don't believe the big brands like Samsung, LG, Sony, even make them, they are just a cheap Chinese one from somebody like TCL they stick a brand label on.
Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
I have zero sympathy for these conscripted soldiers any more. Anyone arguing for giving up Ukrainian land for peace is arguing for handing over a chunk of the Ukrainian population to face state-run terror.
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
As for BBC Three it is a million miles better than most of the shite on cable. There are dozens of channels which I never watch - absolute rubbish full of endless ads.
The crap cable / satellite channels are dead men walking too. Sky should be as worried as anybody about how the world of media is changing.
The problem is BBC Three isn't better (in the minds of the target demographic) than the array of other options...that's why the yuff aren't watching BBC Three. The people saying well I think BBC Three is alright, you aren't the demographic, its teenagers through to mid 20s, and they ain't watching when it was on iPlayer and they ain't watching now its back on linear tv.
Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
Havering politics are just bonkers.
I think we're done and dusted in Aberdeenshire with nominations. The council has published the candidate list and it's not as exciting as all that Havering stuff.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
iPlayer via Virgin cable has UHD for a fair few shows now.
I’ve seen quite a few in UHD through Virgin cable. They tend to do them in UHD when the show suits it I think.
That is exactly my link. That is tiny list in 2022. It isn't about when it suits, it is as much who made it e.g. The Tourist was made with HBO. HBO will insist on 4k. 9/11: Inside the President's War Room was made in conjunction with Apple+.
It’s not tiny unless you watch far too much telly! It would take me years to get through all those!
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
Irish MEP Clare Daly has denounced the EU's sanctions on Russia in the European Parliament, saying the response "makes me sick", and decrying attempts to replace Russian gas with "filthy fracked US gas"
The destruction of Russian war equipment continues...
"#Ukraine: 2 days ago, the Operational Command "East" of the Ukrainian Army posted video that claimed to show "over 40" Russian vehicles destroyed by Ukrainian Artillery fire on a Russian rear base.
We did not publish it, as we couldn't verify the claim or the target. However...
It actually turns out that this claim was legitimate, with at least 35 vehicles totally destroyed or damaged; mostly supply or fuel trucks, but with BMP/T-72 variant also. This is a serious blow."
Both Ukrainian intel and targeting very sharp there.
They don't tend to get into the detail understandably, but one area one assumes the West is able to have an oversized impact would be worth intel.
Yes. What's significant about an operation like this one is that it implies a fairly tight integration of intelligence gathered, target identified, communicated to units in the field that can act, target hit under observation.
Each individual step requires a certain level of competence, but combining them all together is that much more difficult, and therefore impressive.
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You literally linked to these plans and CH4 "technological innovation" is basically have a recommendation system that has been standard in every other walk of life for 5 years. Totally clueless. iPlayer tech is crap, 4oD tech is crap, what's the plan to hire people to compete. Where's my 4K, where's my proper HDR.
Disney literally paid several billion dollars to buy BAMTech, so they had the tech required for their Disney+ streaming service, in order to ensure they had the tech to compete.
The weird thing is that the web iPlayer actually has proper 1080p (and it gets pushed as far as the CDNs!) - they just don't expose access to it it via the web interface.
iPlayer via Virgin cable has UHD for a fair few shows now.
I’ve seen quite a few in UHD through Virgin cable. They tend to do them in UHD when the show suits it I think.
Full List:
9/11: Inside the President's War Room Attenborough's Life in Colour Attenborough's Wonder of Song Blue Planet II Chloe Doctor Who: Revolution of the Daleks Dynasties The Earthshot Prize: Repairing Our Planet The Girl Before The Green Planet His Dark Materials Life and Death in the Warehouse Mood Peaky Blinders, Series 6 A Perfect Planet The Pursuit of Love The Responder Ridley Road Seven Worlds, One Planet Showtrial The Tourist The Trick A Very British Scandal Vigil Wonders of the Celtic Deep As part of our trial, we also provided live streams in Ultra HD for both the UEFA Men's Euro 2020 and Wimbledon 2021.
A lot of those shows have come around in the last few months which shows that the BBC are getting into gear with UHD now.
Netflix might have the most UHD shows, but a not insignificant amount of them are documentaries which consist of interviews and archive footage. Someone sitting in a chair talking to a camera in UHD doesn't have the "wow" factor and wouldn't look much different in 1080p but still counts towards their UHD output.
All4 might not be the greatest video player, but it's not that way because the government owns it. ITV isn't government owned but the ITV Hub is absolute crap.
Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation. Nor has the government. The $1bn is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).
It's post like this that demonstrate why the BBC and Channel 4 are basically doomed. Merely observing reality (broadcast TV has already lost the young) is "BBC bashing". No amount of good will in New York will save them, as those New Yorkers contribute essentially nothing to the BBC and Channel 4 coffers.
I like the BBC a lot, mainly radio and the website, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it has a future as it is.
I’m very interested in ideas for how the BBC could change, but the dominant tone on here is by people who dismiss the notion of public service or state owned broadcasting altogether.
So I just ignore them as (to my mind) bad faith debaters.
Anyway, my post was intended as a rebuttal to the idea that the BBC has no brand, nothing more.
My core argument is always the licence fee is in the modern world a) totally unenforceable and b) totally outdated idea I have to pay a licence to watch telly, even if I don't watch the 4 BBC channels i.e. I only want to watch Sky Sports.
The debate is then how do you replace the licence fee. There are a range of options.
Agree with this.
I personally think the BBC (TV) should split into two; the legacy analogue channels, and a digital first player.
The legacy analogue channel should focus on the basics, ie BBC1 and 2.
The digital first player arm (let’s call it BBC Digital) should strike a deal to partner with HBO+. Together they would have an astonishing library of content and could compete legitimately in the US and perhaps other places.
In the UK, BBC Digital would be available for a streaming fee equal to the current license fee, which should otherwise be scrapped.
Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation. Nor has the government. The $1bn is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).
It's post like this that demonstrate why the BBC and Channel 4 are basically doomed. Merely observing reality (broadcast TV has already lost the young) is "BBC bashing". No amount of good will in New York will save them, as those New Yorkers contribute essentially nothing to the BBC and Channel 4 coffers.
I like the BBC a lot, mainly radio and the website, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it has a future as it is.
I’m very interested in ideas for how the BBC could change, but the dominant tone on here is by people who dismiss the notion of public service or state owned broadcasting altogether.
So I just ignore them as (to my mind) bad faith debaters.
Anyway, my post was intended as a rebuttal to the idea that the BBC has no brand, nothing more.
My core argument is always the licence fee is in the modern world a) totally unenforceable and b) totally outdated idea I have to pay a licence to watch telly, even if I don't watch the 4 BBC channels i.e. I only want to watch Sky Sports.
The debate is then how do you replace the licence fee. There are a range of options.
Here is my recommendation:
1. Split off the BBC and Channel 4 as non-profit enterprises, freeing them from government interference and maintaining their mission focus.
2. Have a public broadcasting fund paid for by general taxation. Allow the BBC, Channel 4 and any other broadcaster to bid for funds from this pot program by program against public service criteria of educating and informing the public. Have it strongly overseen for impartiality.
3. Have a separate fund for developing new artistic stuff like comedies, drama etc.
4. Allow the BBC to get automatic rights to these pots in a declining share over next 5 years while they adjust.
5. Return the World Service and local language services to the Foreign Office, funded by those funds.
Irish MEP Clare Daly has denounced the EU's sanctions on Russia in the European Parliament, saying the response "makes me sick", and decrying attempts to replace Russian gas with "filthy fracked US gas"
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
As for BBC Three it is a million miles better than most of the shite on cable. There are dozens of channels which I never watch - absolute rubbish full of endless ads.
The crap cable / satellite channels are dead men walking too. Sky should be as worried as anybody about how the world of media is changing.
The problem is BBC Three isn't better (in the minds of the target demographic) than the array of other options...that's why the yuff aren't watching BBC Three. The people saying well I think BBC Three is alright, you aren't the demographic, its teenagers through to mid 20s, and they ain't watching when it was on iPlayer and they ain't watching now its back on linear tv.
They are - why do you think Sky Glass exists - and why do you think there are Sky Netflix combo deals that give you Netflix for virtually nowt.
As for BBC Three it is a million miles better than most of the shite on cable. There are dozens of channels which I never watch - absolute rubbish full of endless ads.
The crap cable / satellite channels are dead men walking too. Sky should be as worried as anybody about how the world of media is changing.
The problem is BBC Three isn't better (in the minds of the target demographic) than the array of other options...that's why the yuff aren't watching BBC Three. The people saying well I think BBC Three is alright, you aren't the demographic, its teenagers through to mid 20s, and they ain't watching when it was on iPlayer and they ain't watching now its back on linear tv.
They are - why do you think Sky Glass exists - and why do you think there are Sky Netflix combo deals that give you Netflix for virtually nowt.
Well yes and they are also investing billions in original programming / production facility at Elstree. They also have the NowTV service for a slightly different segment of the market. They are adapting, unlike some other players ;-)
The big thing for Sky is the issue of footy rights. That is why a huge number of people have Sky (even though it is very expensive). One other issue might well be that HBO Max could come to UK and that is basically the Sky Atlantic channel gone.
Looks like I might be right about increasing secularism in Turkey. Yay
“The headscarf is slipping Not long ago women in Turkey fought to cover their hair, yet now it seems the headscarf has fallen out of favour. Seventeen years into Erdoganʹs rule, some things are floundering – including the assumption that Turkish society is becoming increasingly conservative. By Christiane Schlotzer”
Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
Havering politics are just bonkers.
I reckon Harold Wood ('call me Harry') will walk it.
It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:
@annettepacey Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
For some reason I still get BT Sport for free included in my BT broadband. If that's a mistake, please don't tell BT!
Boris "Bucha shots do not look far short of genocide" - I wonder how considered those words are. Rwanda 1994 was all "Don't mention the G word" because if it's there, there is a duty to prevent it on parties to the 1948 convention.
Speaking to James O'Brien, Sir Keir said there is "no case for rejoining the EU" but Labour will "make it work".
He said: "We can't reverse Brexit. There's no case for rejoining the EU.
What's changed since 2016 then? Other than Labour being handed its arse in a large number of seats, like...
Never trust a politician.
We've got to do this from a position of principle. Did we agree that we would put this decision out to the public for a vote? Yes. Did we agree that we would accept the result? Yes. Have we got to accept the result? Yes. So, the first position is a matter of principle. Having done this, having got a result, we've got to accept it. Simply saying: ‘Well, it's better for us electorally 'if we do this or do that’ doesn't help. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2017
if we need to break the impasse, our options must include campaigning for a public vote – and nobody is ruling out Remain as an option. - Sir Keir Starmer, 2018
I don’t find those statements particularly contradictory.
But, now a much harder task: find two contradictory Boris statements. I dare you!
Wow, you really think that having a second vote with the defeated Remain option back on the ballot paper is "accepting" the result? OK then!
It's clear that a significant part of the voting public recognises that Brexit was a Bad Idea. And that a decreasing number think it was actually a good one.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
I knit, which is an activity well-suited to combining with watching TV (I did a lot of sock-knitting during Euro I can't believe it's not 2020), but I don't know where you get the time to watch so much TV.
We're sort of half using our Netflix subscription, and there are the occasional thing that we watch on BBC, but we're partway through a number of series and I can't imagine adding a sports subscription and another streaming service.
In terms of sport, I listen to TMS for Test cricket and the County Championship (starting again tomorrow!) is on free streams available via the ECB or the County websites. What other sport is there?
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
Indeed. The naughty streams are absolute rubbish. Watching sport is one of life’s great pleasures. Why ruin it by bringing your own sandwiches to the restaurant?
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
For some reason I still get BT Sport for free included in my BT broadband. If that's a mistake, please don't tell BT!
Funny that - I use Virgin Media, and have never subscribed to BT Sport - but at the start of this football season, it suddenly appeared live on my channels and I've had a freebie ever since.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
For some reason I still get BT Sport for free included in my BT broadband. If that's a mistake, please don't tell BT!
I pay £16.50 for BT sport on top of my BT broadband
There are far better things for Governments to be doing?
Wouldn't you rather that Government indulged in something relatively benign and cost-free like Channel 4, and at a decent arms length, than deciding the Cabinet is full of mini-nuke and fracking experts who need to have their opinions heard?
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
Elementary is absolutely fantastic, my favourite TV show after Father Ted.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
Peaky Blinders also turned to shit halfway through season 2 and never recovered
Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
Havering politics are just bonkers.
Damn you, I now have 500 Miles stuck in my head...
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
Peaky Blinders also turned to shit halfway through season 2 and never recovered
I never got into it. But it is undeniably popular, but no way to leverage a hit in the modern media landscape. 10 years for 36 sodding episodes.....Even George RR Martin creates stuff faster than that.
It looks like there will be a 4 year gap between Bodyguard S1 and S2....can you imagine Apple, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc doing that to a show that got 11 million viewers.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
Peaky Blinders also turned to shit halfway through season 2 and never recovered
Maybe you could try and be on it, you like to make things up as you go along
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
Peaky Blinders also turned to shit halfway through season 2 and never recovered
I never got into it. But it is undeniably popular, but no way to leverage a hit in the modern media landscape.
The first series was absolutely brilliant. The visuals remained great throughout and I loved the mad choice of music
But the plots jumped the shark way too early. Shame
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
I knit, which is an activity well-suited to combining with watching TV (I did a lot of sock-knitting during Euro I can't believe it's not 2020), but I don't know where you get the time to watch so much TV.
We're sort of half using our Netflix subscription, and there are the occasional thing that we watch on BBC, but we're partway through a number of series and I can't imagine adding a sports subscription and another streaming service.
In terms of sport, I listen to TMS for Test cricket and the County Championship (starting again tomorrow!) is on free streams available via the ECB or the County websites. What other sport is there?
My point is exactly that: I don’t watch that much TV, I cannot believe how anyone could watch so much as some people on PB seem to claim, therefore the Netflix and Prime subscriptions are barely worth it.
TMS is great, and I listen to it, but as a cricket fan presumably you actually want to watch Test match cricket too?
I find the idea that purported sports fans refuse to pay a round of drinks a month to watch professional sport absolutely baffling.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Wouldn't surprise me if that was rights issues. Elementary was (I think) shown on Sky. Was Sherlock on BBC Worldwide?
Catching up with a Ukrainian family that has arrived in our village through the Homes scheme…. One is a teacher of Ukrainian language and is now remotely teaching kids back in Ukraine, lockdown style, which seems cool…
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
I think that's about where I am. Prices are getting close to not worth it when they are still trying to all have their own services.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
Thought Peaky Blinders was pretty awful. I managed seven episodes of the hot mess and barely plausible storylines before I binned it. It looks great, the VFX are excellent. But the characters are almost universally unsympathetic, the plots rushed, and the screenplay muddled.
Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
Havering politics are just bonkers.
Damn you, I now have 500 Miles stuck in my head...
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.
Elementary, not so much?
Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
For some reason I still get BT Sport for free included in my BT broadband. If that's a mistake, please don't tell BT!
I pay £16.50 for BT sport on top of my BT broadband
Last time, I haggled with Virgin, they threw in BT Sport for free. I'd forgotten about it until I checked the sport options one Saturday and discovered Liverpool playing live. I assumed it was for one year only but it seems not.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
When you say “people consume content at an incredible rate”, do you mean “I consume content at an incredible rate”?
Irish MEP Clare Daly has denounced the EU's sanctions on Russia in the European Parliament, saying the response "makes me sick", and decrying attempts to replace Russian gas with "filthy fracked US gas"
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
For some reason I still get BT Sport for free included in my BT broadband. If that's a mistake, please don't tell BT!
Funny that - I use Virgin Media, and have never subscribed to BT Sport - but at the start of this football season, it suddenly appeared live on my channels and I've had a freebie ever since.
That’s because with certain Virgin packages it’s cheaper to have it than not have in my experience.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
When you say “people consume content at an incredible rate”, do you mean “I consume content at an incredible rate”?
No. Its a fact. Netflix paid absolutely insane amounts of money to have Friends and Seinfeld in recent years, because they explain people eat up all the original content so quickly they need these shows that people will watch many many times over in order to keep them on the platform between new releases of the blue chip stuff.
That is despite, Netflix making 60 shows in the UK last year alone, with 10,000 people working on them. Sky Productions are planning on doing the same. The demand for content is immense.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
When you say “people consume content at an incredible rate”, do you mean “I consume content at an incredible rate”?
No. Its a fact. Netflix paid absolutely insane amounts of money to have Friends and Seinfeld in recent years, because they explain people eat up all the original content so quickly they need these shows that people will watch many many times over in order to keep them on the platform between new releases of the blue chip stuff.
That is despite, Netflix making 60 shows in the UK last year alone, with 10,000 people working on them. Sky Productions are planning on doing the same. The demand for content is immense.
Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..
On transgender he said
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
On partygate
He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject
On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement
On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down
This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible
On transgender, let us pick apart those views:
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?
I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?
Politico.com - Garland: DOJ assisting international war crimes investigations in Ukraine “The world sees what is happening in Ukraine. The Justice Department sees what is happening in Ukraine,” the attorney general said.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
When you say “people consume content at an incredible rate”, do you mean “I consume content at an incredible rate”?
No. Its a fact. Netflix paid absolutely insane amounts of money to have Friends and Seinfeld in recent years, because they explain people eat up all the original content so quickly they need these shows that people will watch many many times over in order to keep them on the platform between new releases of the blue chip stuff.
That is despite, Netflix making 60 shows in the UK last year alone, with 10,000 people working on them. Sky Productions are planning on doing the same. The demand for content is immense.
Scary. People need to get a bloody life.
With phones, iPads, all of a sudden you have a device to watch this content anywhere at anytime. So people do so on their commute, in the gym etc. As well as obviously in front of the telly.
Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation. Nor has the government. The $1bn is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).
It's post like this that demonstrate why the BBC and Channel 4 are basically doomed. Merely observing reality (broadcast TV has already lost the young) is "BBC bashing". No amount of good will in New York will save them, as those New Yorkers contribute essentially nothing to the BBC and Channel 4 coffers.
I like the BBC a lot, mainly radio and the website, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it has a future as it is.
I’m very interested in ideas for how the BBC could change, but the dominant tone on here is by people who dismiss the notion of public service or state owned broadcasting altogether.
So I just ignore them as (to my mind) bad faith debaters.
Anyway, my post was intended as a rebuttal to the idea that the BBC has no brand, nothing more.
My core argument is always the licence fee is in the modern world a) totally unenforceable and b) totally outdated idea I have to pay a licence to watch telly, even if I don't watch the 4 BBC channels i.e. I only want to watch Sky Sports.
The debate is then how do you replace the licence fee. There are a range of options.
Agree with this.
I personally think the BBC (TV) should split into two; the legacy analogue channels, and a digital first player.
The legacy analogue channel should focus on the basics, ie BBC1 and 2.
The digital first player arm (let’s call it BBC Digital) should strike a deal to partner with HBO+. Together they would have an astonishing library of content and could compete legitimately in the US and perhaps other places.
In the UK, BBC Digital would be available for a streaming fee equal to the current license fee, which should otherwise be scrapped.
It's not a bad idea. And the analogue channel should also perhaps be free to view worldwide digitally along with bits of 'Digital'.
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
For some reason I still get BT Sport for free included in my BT broadband. If that's a mistake, please don't tell BT!
Funny that - I use Virgin Media, and have never subscribed to BT Sport - but at the start of this football season, it suddenly appeared live on my channels and I've had a freebie ever since.
That’s because with certain Virgin packages it’s cheaper to have it than not have in my experience.
Maybe, but I've had Virgin for 16 years, with Sky Sports, but it was only last year that they gave me BT Sports 'free' without telling me - I discovered it by chance.
Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
Havering politics are just bonkers.
Damn you, I now have 500 Miles stuck in my head...
No Peoples Front for the Liberation of Harold Wood?
TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.
They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.
Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.
The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.
Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?
I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.
How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,
"Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"
F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.
You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.
Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.
That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.
You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".
If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.
So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.
Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.
There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.
Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.
BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
Ownership and funding are linked though as the funding model that C4 has been relying upon is dying - fast. And so either it evolves under ownership that is ready to adapt to that and generates alternative funding sources - or the owners will be liable for losses or winding it up when the funding dries up.
Realistically the state isn't best placed to generate the alternative funding sources - and left to its own devices under its current ownership their plans for the future are embarrassing at best, so an alternative ownership is needed to get the funding in place for the future. The two are intrinsically linked.
How can you say it's dying when they are making a profit right now, in the present, in the teeth of Netflix/Amazon. Ah the future, streaming, you say. But you could as easily say that people will get sick of paying a subscription for a streaming service only 3% of which they ever use.
Both a subscription model and ad-funded are of course commercial models and there may well be room for both in the market so I'm not sure why you say "Commercial TV has failed". And as I noted above, there is probably a large number of people who would put up with adverts in order to get "free" tv.
Be against government ownership of TV companies (I am) by all means but your strange arguments around "Commercial TV" and the streaming services does your case no good if you conflate as @eek notes, ownership and business models.
By "commercial" TV I was quite clearly referring to, as I had already pointed out, TV funded by commercials as opposed to alternatives.
The owners need to find another business model as C4's is dying. Yes its running a profit today, I don't deny that, but its not going to in five or ten years time if nothing changes.
You're like somebody in 2005 saying that Blockbuster is making a profit from its video stores so it has no reason to consider changing.
Basically you have just copied and pasted the Government defence rationale for privatising C4 as proposed yesterday.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
When you say “people consume content at an incredible rate”, do you mean “I consume content at an incredible rate”?
No. Its a fact. Netflix paid absolutely insane amounts of money to have Friends and Seinfeld in recent years, because they explain people eat up all the original content so quickly they need these shows that people will watch many many times over in order to keep them on the platform between new releases of the blue chip stuff.
That is despite, Netflix making 60 shows in the UK last year alone, with 10,000 people working on them. Sky Productions are planning on doing the same. The demand for content is immense.
Scary. People need to get a bloody life.
With phones, iPads, all of a sudden you have a device to watch this content anywhere at anytime. So people do so on their commute, in the gym etc. As well as obviously in front of the telly.
Yeah tried watching on my commute. Awful, trying to watch a drama on a small screen surrounded by businesspeople.
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
For some reason I still get BT Sport for free included in my BT broadband. If that's a mistake, please don't tell BT!
Funny that - I use Virgin Media, and have never subscribed to BT Sport - but at the start of this football season, it suddenly appeared live on my channels and I've had a freebie ever since.
That’s because with certain Virgin packages it’s cheaper to have it than not have in my experience.
Maybe, but I've had Virgin for 16 years, with Sky Sports, but it was only last year that they gave me BT Sports 'free' without telling me - I discovered it by chance.
Did you upgrade your broadband speed?
I mean, you might not have done. These things do seem rather random!
. . . For its part, the Alaska Democratic Party is lining up behind Anchorage Assembly member Chris Constant, although other notable Democrats are running, including state Rep. Adam Wool; former state Rep. Mary Sattler Peltola, a Yup’ik Eskimo; and indigenous activist Emil Notti, an 89-year old Koyukon Athabascan who lost to Young in the 1973 special election for this seat. Meanwhile, a handful of independent (“nonpartisan” or “undeclared” in Alaska parlance) candidates are also running: Al Gross, an independent who lost the 2020 U.S. Senate race as the Democratic nominee; former Republican state Rep. Andrew Halcro; former Alaska assistant attorney general and garden columnist Jeff Lowenfels; and even a North Pole city councilor who changed his name to Santa Claus. Did we mention there are a lot of candidates?
There’s been no public polling of the special primary yet, but we do have one data point on the special general election that includes Palin: A Change Research poll funded by 314 Action Fund, which spent heavily to boost Gross’s campaign in 2020, found Palin and Gross running neck and neck at around 35 percent after respondents’ choices were reallocated via ranked-choice voting. To be sure, the poll only included four candidates: Palin, Gross, Revak and one other Republican who ultimately chose not to run, but even so, the poll does illustrate how Palin could win in a ranked-choice general election. At the same time, though, it underscores how ranked-choice voting could make for an incredibly close contest, possibly because of Palin’s poor standing among Alaska voters writ large.
One last wrinkle in the Alaska race is that the special general election will coincide with the regular primary for the November general election, which means we will find out who won the special election at the same time as we discover which four candidates advanced to the regular general election. Most of the high-profile contenders, including Palin, have filed or say they intend to file for the regular contest (they have until June 1 to do so). In other words, most of the major candidates will essentially be campaigning for two elections at once in the coming months. Still, at least a few notable names — Coghill, Halcro and Notti, for instance — only plan to run in the special, so it’s not out of the question that the special election winner will not be among the candidates who advance to the regular general election. . . .
I have zero sympathy for these conscripted soldiers any more. Anyone arguing for giving up Ukrainian land for peace is arguing for handing over a chunk of the Ukrainian population to face state-run terror.
If you want Ukraine to be able to recapture territory, then we need to give them tank, artillery long range missiles, as well as the small Ames and hand held missiles we are already giving them.
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
It's easy to get first call on actors by paying absolute top dollar. Which is what Apple TV have done here.
I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
When you say “people consume content at an incredible rate”, do you mean “I consume content at an incredible rate”?
No. Its a fact. Netflix paid absolutely insane amounts of money to have Friends and Seinfeld in recent years, because they explain people eat up all the original content so quickly they need these shows that people will watch many many times over in order to keep them on the platform between new releases of the blue chip stuff.
That is despite, Netflix making 60 shows in the UK last year alone, with 10,000 people working on them. Sky Productions are planning on doing the same. The demand for content is immense.
Scary. People need to get a bloody life.
Why? People seek out entertainment of different forms, some will go heavier on the tv/streaming than others.
Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..
On transgender he said
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
On partygate
He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject
On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement
On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down
This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible
On transgender, let us pick apart those views:
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?
I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?
Complicated issues, without easy answers.
I'd agree with all that, and would only add that I'm uncomfortable with the concept of 'parental decision'. I wouldn't trust quite a lot of parents to make an informed decision. And that includes parents who may encourage their youngsters to change gender/sex inappropriately, as well as the other way round.
Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..
On transgender he said
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
On partygate
He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject
On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement
On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down
This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible
On transgender, let us pick apart those views:
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?
I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?
Complicated issues, without easy answers.
He is also mixing two definitions of 'conversion therapy'.
His government is still legislating to ban it (ie the coercive practice of attempting to persuade homosexual individuals that they aren't homosexual) in respect of homosexuality, at the same time as abandoning their previous promise to do so also in respect of transgender individuals.
Talking about non-coercive clinical treatment of transgender individuals as "conversion therapy", at the same time as the government has ditched the proposed ban on coercive activities is singularly bad faith argument.
The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.
Note how the second thing he brings up is his follower count. People are so proud.
The second thing to note is that of the things he lists only not working for Russian media would be relevant - being the leader of a party and spending time in parliament wouldn't mean he couldn't be a paid russian shill. Heck, you can be a former leader of a country and do that.
Dear TwitterSupport I am not “Russian State Affiliated media”. I work for NO #Russian media. I have 400,000 followers. I’m the leader of a British political party and spent nearly 30 years in the British parliament. If you do not remove this designation I will take legal action
Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
Havering politics are just bonkers.
Damn you, I now have 500 Miles stuck in my head...
No Peoples Front for the Liberation of Harold Wood?
no, The Harold Wood Liberation Front.
Not the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Harold wood. Splitters!
I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
From experience of visiting friends, they use naughty streams which seem to go down every 3 minutes. We subscribe to Sky and BT here too and the stability and quality of the service is worth every penny compared to the alternative.
For some reason I still get BT Sport for free included in my BT broadband. If that's a mistake, please don't tell BT!
I pay £16.50 for BT sport on top of my BT broadband
You are paying for his ;-)
Bt sport and Sky sports are the only reason I subscribe to BT and Sky
But then in my time I have played football, cricket, golf, tennis, canoeing and sailing and have had a lifetime love of sport
The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.
I have no "political" reason for getting rid of the licence fee, I just think it's wrong I can't watch Sky or Channel 4 because I don't want to pay for the BBC.
The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.
Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.
I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.
The flaw with this argument is why should we believe a privatised Channel 4 will become a second Netflix when no rationale at all is put forward for the change, beyond Nadine wants this? Channel 4 has a niche in its current form. What will the privatised version offer?
Who gives a fuck. The government owning C4 is like the government owning W H Smith. What’s the point? Sell it while it is still worth something. We need the money
But then why can't it make a profit for the Government and ease the burden on the taxpayer? Why shouldn't the BBC do the same? I don't really have a problem with public ownership. If it does make a profit (and could be made to make even more profit - a pre-requisite for any company wanting to buy it), why then sell it? Why not keep it and keep getting the golden eggs?
Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..
On transgender he said
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
On partygate
He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject
On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement
On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down
This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible
On transgender, let us pick apart those views:
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?
I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?
Complicated issues, without easy answers.
It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.
To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.
Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?
Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.
To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.
Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?
Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
The right seem to prefer that we get our news and entertainment from oligarchs albeit of various flavours. If anything has had its day it is that.
The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.
To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.
Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?
Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
The right seem to prefer that we get our news and entertainment from oligarchs albeit of various flavours. If anything has had its day it is that.
I didn't know it was all out elections in St Albans. Lib Dems are therefore probably certain to win a huge majority anyway with the Tories winning a few seats around London Colney and Harpenden. So this is one council where the Tories will definitely see large seat losses.
Even the most ghastly regime can't be held responsible for the acts of individuals under its command. I suspect there are Russian soldiers out there trying not to blindly kill. I certainly don't see Putin as responsible for their acts.
St Albans is all up this year due to revised ward boundaries. In a few seats (3 to be elected) there are three lib dems, 2 green, 1 labour, 1 conservative. Conservatives have only put up a full slates in their existing seats. Probably more green candidates than labour!
The only ward where the lib dems is not standing a full slate is St Peters where there is 6 candidates for 3 seats, 2LD, 2C, 1L & 1G. The green candidate is a popular current councillor for that ward.
There is a communist party of Britain candidate in Sopwell.
Comments
In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.
Havering politics are just bonkers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/txjkyo/imagine_you_are_finally_at_home_and_see_that/
I have zero sympathy for these conscripted soldiers any more. Anyone arguing for giving up Ukrainian land for peace is arguing for handing over a chunk of the Ukrainian population to face state-run terror.
Beeb is still decent value for money.
The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?
The problem is BBC Three isn't better (in the minds of the target demographic) than the array of other options...that's why the yuff aren't watching BBC Three. The people saying well I think BBC Three is alright, you aren't the demographic, its teenagers through to mid 20s, and they ain't watching when it was on iPlayer and they ain't watching now its back on linear tv.
I’ve seen some of them but not that many.
https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1511626671824252934
Each individual step requires a certain level of competence, but combining them all together is that much more difficult, and therefore impressive.
Netflix might have the most UHD shows, but a not insignificant amount of them are documentaries which consist of interviews and archive footage. Someone sitting in a chair talking to a camera in UHD doesn't have the "wow" factor and wouldn't look much different in 1080p but still counts towards their UHD output.
All4 might not be the greatest video player, but it's not that way because the government owns it. ITV isn't government owned but the ITV Hub is absolute crap.
I personally think the BBC (TV) should split into two; the legacy analogue channels, and a digital first player.
The legacy analogue channel should focus on the basics, ie BBC1 and 2.
The digital first player arm (let’s call it BBC Digital) should strike a deal to partner with HBO+. Together they would have an astonishing library of content and could compete legitimately in the US and perhaps other places.
In the UK, BBC Digital would be available for a streaming fee equal to the current license fee, which should otherwise be scrapped.
1. Split off the BBC and Channel 4 as non-profit enterprises, freeing them from government interference and maintaining their mission focus.
2. Have a public broadcasting fund paid for by general taxation. Allow the BBC, Channel 4 and any other broadcaster to bid for funds from this pot program by program against public service criteria of educating and informing the public. Have it strongly overseen for impartiality.
3. Have a separate fund for developing new artistic stuff like comedies, drama etc.
4. Allow the BBC to get automatic rights to these pots in a declining share over next 5 years while they adjust.
5. Return the World Service and local language services to the Foreign Office, funded by those funds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG1SLo0fD34
The big thing for Sky is the issue of footy rights. That is why a huge number of people have Sky (even though it is very expensive). One other issue might well be that HBO Max could come to UK and that is basically the Sky Atlantic channel gone.
“The headscarf is slipping
Not long ago women in Turkey fought to cover their hair, yet now it seems the headscarf has fallen out of favour. Seventeen years into Erdoganʹs rule, some things are floundering – including the assumption that Turkish society is becoming increasingly conservative. By Christiane Schlotzer”
https://en.qantara.de/content/women-in-turkey-the-headscarf-is-slipping?page=0,1
That was 2019. I suggest it has accelerated since then
Hmmmmm
Mayor of Mariupol Vadim Boychenko said today that #Russian mobile crematoria have started operating in the city.
According to him, tens of thousands of people could have died in Mariupol and the cremation, "covering up the traces of crimes".
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1511664812719235073
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1511723559521079297
When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.
The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.
Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch.
We're sort of half using our Netflix subscription, and there are the occasional thing that we watch on BBC, but we're partway through a number of series and I can't imagine adding a sports subscription and another streaming service.
In terms of sport, I listen to TMS for Test cricket and the County Championship (starting again tomorrow!) is on free streams available via the ECB or the County websites. What other sport is there?
Elementary, not so much?
Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.
Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.
Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
It looks like there will be a 4 year gap between Bodyguard S1 and S2....can you imagine Apple, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc doing that to a show that got 11 million viewers.
But the plots jumped the shark way too early. Shame
TMS is great, and I listen to it, but as a cricket fan presumably you actually want to watch Test match cricket too?
I find the idea that purported sports fans refuse to pay a round of drinks a month to watch professional sport absolutely baffling.
And while I dont trust their motivation for doing it I'm surprised at the idea channel 4 is an institution.
SLOW HORSES S02
https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/
None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....
What do people see in it?
Unless the driveways are very very long.
Last time, I haggled with Virgin, they threw in BT Sport for free. I'd forgotten about it until I checked the sport options one Saturday and discovered Liverpool playing live. I assumed it was for one year only but it seems not.
That is despite, Netflix making 60 shows in the UK last year alone, with 10,000 people working on them. Sky Productions are planning on doing the same. The demand for content is immense.
Be interesting to see how this plays out, as it is perhaps sub optimal timing for a significant shakeup in the UK farming sector.
He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
- If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)
He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
- Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.
He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
- Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?
I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?
Complicated issues, without easy answers.
“The world sees what is happening in Ukraine. The Justice Department sees what is happening in Ukraine,” the attorney general said.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/06/doj-war-crimes-investigations-ukraine-00023393
And the analogue channel should also perhaps be free to view worldwide digitally along with bits of 'Digital'.
What is the point?
These people should try reading a book!
I mean, you might not have done. These things do seem rather random!
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-alaskas-special-election-create-an-opening-for-sarah-palins-comeback/
. . . For its part, the Alaska Democratic Party is lining up behind Anchorage Assembly member Chris Constant, although other notable Democrats are running, including state Rep. Adam Wool; former state Rep. Mary Sattler Peltola, a Yup’ik Eskimo; and indigenous activist Emil Notti, an 89-year old Koyukon Athabascan who lost to Young in the 1973 special election for this seat. Meanwhile, a handful of independent (“nonpartisan” or “undeclared” in Alaska parlance) candidates are also running: Al Gross, an independent who lost the 2020 U.S. Senate race as the Democratic nominee; former Republican state Rep. Andrew Halcro; former Alaska assistant attorney general and garden columnist Jeff Lowenfels; and even a North Pole city councilor who changed his name to Santa Claus. Did we mention there are a lot of candidates?
There’s been no public polling of the special primary yet, but we do have one data point on the special general election that includes Palin: A Change Research poll funded by 314 Action Fund, which spent heavily to boost Gross’s campaign in 2020, found Palin and Gross running neck and neck at around 35 percent after respondents’ choices were reallocated via ranked-choice voting. To be sure, the poll only included four candidates: Palin, Gross, Revak and one other Republican who ultimately chose not to run, but even so, the poll does illustrate how Palin could win in a ranked-choice general election. At the same time, though, it underscores how ranked-choice voting could make for an incredibly close contest, possibly because of Palin’s poor standing among Alaska voters writ large.
One last wrinkle in the Alaska race is that the special general election will coincide with the regular primary for the November general election, which means we will find out who won the special election at the same time as we discover which four candidates advanced to the regular general election. Most of the high-profile contenders, including Palin, have filed or say they intend to file for the regular contest (they have until June 1 to do so). In other words, most of the major candidates will essentially be campaigning for two elections at once in the coming months. Still, at least a few notable names — Coghill, Halcro and Notti, for instance — only plan to run in the special, so it’s not out of the question that the special election winner will not be among the candidates who advance to the regular general election. . . .
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1511729349204103170
. Some with the skill needs to photoshop this, so that Putin's 2nd-favorite tool is wearing a Budenovka.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budenovka
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1223982/thread
His government is still legislating to ban it (ie the coercive practice of attempting to persuade homosexual individuals that they aren't homosexual) in respect of homosexuality, at the same time as abandoning their previous promise to do so also in respect of transgender individuals.
Talking about non-coercive clinical treatment of transgender individuals as "conversion therapy", at the same time as the government has ditched the proposed ban on coercive activities is singularly bad faith argument.
The second thing to note is that of the things he lists only not working for Russian media would be relevant - being the leader of a party and spending time in parliament wouldn't mean he couldn't be a paid russian shill. Heck, you can be a former leader of a country and do that.
Dear TwitterSupport I am not “Russian State Affiliated media”. I work for NO #Russian media. I have 400,000 followers. I’m the leader of a British political party and spent nearly 30 years in the British parliament. If you do not remove this designation I will take legal action
Not the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Harold wood. Splitters!
But then in my time I have played football, cricket, golf, tennis, canoeing and sailing and have had a lifetime love of sport
https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1511736510982332419?s=21&t=iI5Kps6SxtiMs3WONmCRWQ
Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?
Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
Lib Dems are therefore probably certain to win a huge majority anyway with the Tories winning a few seats around London Colney and Harpenden. So this is one council where the Tories will definitely see large seat losses.
The only ward where the lib dems is not standing a full slate is St Peters where there is 6 candidates for 3 seats, 2LD, 2C, 1L & 1G. The green candidate is a popular current councillor for that ward.
There is a communist party of Britain candidate in Sopwell.
https://www.stalbans.gov.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Statement of Persons Nominated_5 May 2022_St Albans City and District.pdf