Originally posted by eddie andersyes, it's not great. But bad? Compared to what? Compared to every other public service I have encountered in any country (although I admit to not watching the non-English language ones much) it's way better. Yes, there's 500 hundred channels on Sky, but when I had it I only ever watched 10 of them because all the others were utter rubbish, and the frequency of repetition on these was much much higher than on the BBC (like the same 72 hours of programing played over and over all month!). Then to get the newest movies or the big sporting events you have to pay even more...
not bad for £130 are you off your tiny little head if they would just advertise then there would be NO fee i hate paying for the crap they put on tv if you want to pay for sky or cable the choice is yours but you could watch 500 channels and not watch the bbc but you still have to pay for it i think its SHOCKING they get away with it the trading standards should shut them down.ðŸ˜
If they wanted, the BBC could go all digital, and then they could collect sunscriptions like Sky does & cut off anyone who hasn't paid. But they don't, despite practically giving the digital boxes away, because this would still exclude a minority of viewers.
Originally posted by Deputy1Since when has ITV been better then BBC 1 or 2? ITV1 is quite possibly the worst televesion channel available, and yes I am including Channel 4 and five in that statement. ITV1 just churns out the most inane, thoughtless broadcasting since the shopping chaneel was invented. It's only redeeming feature is that it has the rights to the Champions League and Prermier League (which they have managed to destroy by only ever showing the Man Utd game), although next year MOTD is back to save us. BTW ITV1 has as many repeats as the BBC
BBC has too many repeats ITV is Better than BBC I won't watch BBC,only for the news and East Enders Yours John Hamer
Mark
Originally posted by mmanuelWhist ITV's coverage of the champions league has been ok, despite the bias towards Man Utd, their coverage of the premiership over the past 2 1/2 years has been worse than appalling! Since the great Match of the day will be returning next year, we can look forward to decent footy highlights coverage with intelligent analysis, however, we still have to suffer another six month of rubbish from Des, Andy and Ron "know all, but achieved naff all" Atkinson. And while im at it, what are these stupid intros all about with b&C lists stars poncing around a technicolour studio? ðŸ˜
Since when has ITV been better then BBC 1 or 2? ITV1 is quite possibly the worst televesion channel available, and yes I am including Channel 4 and five in that statement. ITV1 just churns out the most inane, thoughtless broadcasting since the shopping chaneel was invented. It's only redeeming feature is that it has the rights to the Champions League and Pr ...[text shortened]... although next year MOTD is back to save us. BTW ITV1 has as many repeats as the BBC
Mark
Originally posted by mmanuelAgreed. ITV1 is dreadful. If it wasn't for the Formula 1 I would never watch it (and the recent Rugby World Cup, which England won 😀).
Since when has ITV been better then BBC 1 or 2? ITV1 is quite possibly the worst televesion channel available, and yes I am including Channel 4 and five in that statement. ITV1 just churns out the most inane, thoughtless broadcasting since the shopping chaneel was invented. It's only redeeming feature is that it has the rights to the Champions League and Pr ...[text shortened]... although next year MOTD is back to save us. BTW ITV1 has as many repeats as the BBC
Mark
They ruined a few Grand Prix this year with their adverts. On one occasion they went to an ad break on the last lap and when they returned the race was over ðŸ˜
The quality of the indepenant channels in the UK is strongly related to the exitence of the BBC. Channel 4 and 5 have their strengths and there is the odd thing on ITV1 that I might watch though it tends to the awful rather too frequently for me.
In free-for-all compition-based TV environments, the quality of broadcasting is basically awful. A sad inditement of the 'tabloid rules' of mass-marketing / media: profit first = lowest common denominator and all that.
In the UK, all the 'tabloid' channels need to compete against a 'broadsheet' as well as each other. The BBC might go up and down in quality as new directors come and go (the present one seems obssessed by viewing figures, which to my mind is a tabloid agenda, not a BBC one) but none-the-less does strive to maintain 'quality', a concern that does not impinge on tabloid culture.
You may not like the broadcasts on BBC but without them, the other channels would soon decend into endless soaps and gameshows, with sports whenver they can afford them. And 'reality' TV. Never forget the terror of reality TV.
There is an argument that 'if thats what the public want...' which needs to be faced up to. Face it I shall: we've seen the results of that system in other nations: the TV is shockingly bad. Sometimes 'majority rule' is a bad rule: I'm aware that that is elitist but I'm not ashamed of it.
Originally posted by belgianfreak500 hundred channels? 5 hundred hundred.🙂
yes, it's not great. But bad? Compared to what? Compared to every other public service I have encountered in any country (although I admit to not watching the non-English language ones much) it's way better. Yes, there's 500 hundred channels on Sky, but when I had it I only ever watched 10 of them because all the others were utter rubbish, and the fr ...[text shortened]... ctically giving the digital boxes away, because this would still exclude a minority of viewers.