charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <tpn5vgd1ktrkq6kdcr8al6ntv7pkdqatci@4ax.com>, Scott
> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
>>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>>> On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
>>>>>> interim mux, Mu 7?
>>>>>>
>>>>> All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56) for
>>>>> broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is likely to
>>>>> go on or before that date.
>>>>>
>>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>>>
>>>> It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
>>>> with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
>>>> find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when
>>>> they reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years
>>>> ago, and in trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts
>>>> programmes in one place".
>>>
>>> I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its first
>>> couple of decades. I’m not sure if it’s me getting old or the world is
>>> really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from the news I
>>> find almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1 of old. So I
>>> think I’d support going back to two channels if the dross could be cut.
>
>> I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the
>> BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate what
>> can be found on the commercial channels.
>
> That was never in the BBC's remit. ITV's remit, on the other hand, was to
> compete with the BBC and also make money for its shareholders. Roy Thompson
> called it 'a licence to print money'
>

Inform, educate, entertain is I believe the original remit. There’s an
awful lot that doesn’t achieve any of this in any significant way. I’m not
going to join the stupid arguments about BBC bias, but I’d like to see a
bit more in the way of programmes aimed at the non brain dead.

On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
> I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving us with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it had some years back. The other stuff is done at least as well by the commercial stations.

What do commercial stations do better?

Except some more trashy ones might appeal to some people and of course
Channel specialises in soft porn.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
>> I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving us
>> with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it had some
>> years back. The other stuff is done at least as well by the commercial stations.
>
>
> What do commercial stations do better?
>
> Except some more trashy ones might appeal to some people and of course
> Channel specialises in soft porn.
>
>

Is it a bit racy in Guernsey and Jersey then? Didn’t notice last time I was
there….

On 27/01/2022 19:13, MB wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
>> I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving us
>> with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it had
>> some years back.  The other stuff is done at least as well by the
>> commercial stations.
>
>
> What do commercial stations do better?

News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some
specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less ignore
now.
Jazz (R2 and 3 have given up), Rock (R1 gave up a long time ago), Light
Classical (given up long ago by R2), Theatre and film score Music (
given up long ago by R2)

Popular news and unrestrained comment (There is no BBC equivalent to
LBC, or Times Radio, 5Live is sports obsessed)

On 27/01/2022 19:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> why does mainstream TV have to try to make everything
> they touch into a dog's dinner? How many people does it really need to
> make a dashcam video?

+1 ... particularly with science programming, which is an insult to the
intelligence of its audience ...

Recently, some months after it was broadcast, I've got around to
watching Brian Cox's "Universe", and jeez, what an interminable
over-produced funereal invocation of boredom - music so loud you can't
hear his mumbling, presumably into a mask; what he had to say spun out
over such long time-filling intervals that you forget the beginning of
the sentence by the time he reaches the end; far too many locations
pointlessly visited; little or SFA new information imparted.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <ssuqrl$fia$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > In article <tpn5vgd1ktrkq6kdcr8al6ntv7pkdqatci@4ax.com>, Scott
> > <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> >> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
> >>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
> >>>>> On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
> >>>>>> interim mux, Mu 7?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56)
> >>>>> for broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is
> >>>>> likely to go on or before that date.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
> >>>> with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
> >>>> find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when
> >>>> they reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years
> >>>> ago, and in trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts
> >>>> programmes in one place".
> >>>
> >>> I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its
> >>> first couple of decades. I<m not sure if it<s me getting old or the
> >>> world is really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from
> >>> the news I find almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1
> >>> of old. So I think I<d support going back to two channels if the
> >>> dross could be cut.
> >
> >> I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the
> >> BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate
> >> what can be found on the commercial channels.
> >
> > That was never in the BBC's remit. ITV's remit, on the other hand, was
> > to compete with the BBC and also make money for its shareholders. Roy
> > Thompson called it 'a licence to print money'
> >

> Inform, educate, entertain is I believe the original remit.

That was never a remit - possibly an "aim". Anyway "Entertain" covers a very
wide range.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
>
> There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,

Thank f**k for that!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <ssuqrl$fia$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <tpn5vgd1ktrkq6kdcr8al6ntv7pkdqatci@4ax.com>, Scott
>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 18:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <j5flefFec8qU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
>>>>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>>>>> On 27/01/2022 12:24, SH wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> does anyone have any up to date info on whats happening with the
>>>>>>>> interim mux, Mu 7?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All we know is currently the licence for using UHF Ch55 (and 56)
>>>>>>> for broadcasting expires on June 30th this year, so COM 7 is
>>>>>>> likely to go on or before that date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be typical if the channel that they close should be the one
>>>>>> with (IMO) the largest amount worthwhile content. No doubt they will
>>>>>> find a way to put a positive spin on it, though. Like Sky did when
>>>>>> they reduced their arts channels from two to one about five years
>>>>>> ago, and in trailers said "now you can find all your favourite arts
>>>>>> programmes in one place".
>>>>>
>>>>> I could accept BBC 4 going if BBC2 went back to how it was in its
>>>>> first couple of decades. I<m not sure if it<s me getting old or the
>>>>> world is really going to pot. BBC1 has become BBC drivel, apart from
>>>>> the news I find almost nothing worth watching. BBC2 is basically BBC1
>>>>> of old. So I think I<d support going back to two channels if the
>>>>> dross could be cut.
>>>
>>>> I think there are far too many channels (television and radio) and the
>>>> BBC should return to its original remit - which is not to replicate
>>>> what can be found on the commercial channels.
>>>
>>> That was never in the BBC's remit. ITV's remit, on the other hand, was
>>> to compete with the BBC and also make money for its shareholders. Roy
>>> Thompson called it 'a licence to print money'
>>>
>
>> Inform, educate, entertain is I believe the original remit.
>
> That was never a remit - possibly an "aim". Anyway "Entertain" covers a very
> wide range.
>

The BBC might disagree with you:

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission

Our mission is "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences
through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and
services which inform, educate and entertain".

Note *high quality* which I contend is sorely lacking in a significant part
of its output.

I feel there is currently an air of never mind the quality feel the width
at the moment.

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>> There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
>
> Thank f**k for that!
>

I find Times Radio to be very good. Certainly not right wing as you might
expect. The quality and breadth of its news broadcasts matches that of
Radio 4. Radio 4 wins on more in depth programming, but these are getting
ever fewer and far between.

On 27/01/2022 19:17, Tweed wrote:
> Is it a bit racy in Guernsey and Jersey then? Didn’t notice last time I was
> there….

The "4" got lost somewhere.

On 27/01/2022 19:12, Tweed wrote:
> I’m not
> going to join the stupid arguments about BBC bias,

BBC bias is a very important topic. It's likely that the public
perception of it is going to result in the BBC getting its wings clipped
severely.

Bill

On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 19:13, MB wrote:
>> On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
>>> I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving us
>>> with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it had
>>> some years back.  The other stuff is done at least as well by the
>>> commercial stations.
>>
>>
>> What do commercial stations do better?
>
> News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some
> specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less ignore
> now.
> Jazz (R2 and 3 have given up), Rock (R1 gave up a long time ago), Light
> Classical (given up long ago by R2), Theatre and film score Music (
> given up long ago by R2)
>
> Popular news and unrestrained comment (There is no BBC equivalent to
> LBC, or Times Radio, 5Live is sports obsessed)
>

Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond the
very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes. It's so
refreshing.

Bill

On Thu 27/01/2022 21:37, williamwright wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 27/01/2022 19:13, MB wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2022 18:19, Clive Page wrote:
>>>> I could accept BBC4 going if BBC1 and BBC3 closed as well, leaving
>>>> us with BBC2 and BBC News, provided BBC2 returned to the remit it
>>>> had some years back.  The other stuff is done at least as well by
>>>> the commercial stations.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do commercial stations do better?
>>
>> News, some might argue. On the radio, the commercial sector have some
>> specialist stations for musical genres that the Beeb more or less
>> ignore now.
>> Jazz (R2 and 3 have given up), Rock (R1 gave up a long time ago),
>> Light Classical (given up long ago by R2), Theatre and film score
>> Music ( given up long ago by R2)
>>
>> Popular news and unrestrained comment (There is no BBC equivalent to
>> LBC, or Times Radio, 5Live is sports obsessed)
>>
>
> Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond the
> very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes. It's so
> refreshing.
>

....and Mark Steyn takes some beating.

Two things:
Does he write his own scripts?
Given the noticeable delays most of the time, is he actually in the UK
when he does that prog?

On 27/01/2022 21:33, williamwright wrote:
> BBC bias is a very important topic. It's likely that the public
> perception of it is going to result in the BBC getting its wings clipped
> severely.
>
> Bill

They have always been accused of bias, from both (or all) sides. They
have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to the Remoaners
and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate change. Though of
course they of bias by all sides.

It became a joke with week after week as Question Time having three or
four Remoaners and if they lucky one supporter of Brexit.

On 27/01/2022 22:54, MB wrote:
>
> They have always been accused of bias, from both (or all) sides.

Which is quite a good sign that in fact they're not particularly biased!

> They
> have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to the Remoaners
> and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate change. Though of
> course they of bias by all sides.
>
> It became a joke with week after week as Question Time having three or
> four Remoaners and if they lucky one supporter of Brexit.

Or maybe, in their remit to (as already quoted in this thread) ...

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission

"act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision
of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which
inform, educate and entertain"

.... they are trying to improve quality by removing the widespread lies
put about by Brexshitters such as you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/01/2022 20:01, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:50:17 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
>>
>> Thank f**k for that!
>
> You're like my friend, who prefers to hear from people she agrees
> with. I, on the other hand, like to hear opposing arguments and to
> make my own mind up.

Then why are you listening to the echo chambers above? Every link to
either that has been posted in this ng has been shit.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thu 27/01/2022 22:54, MB wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 21:33, williamwright wrote:
>> BBC bias is a very important topic. It's likely that the public
>> perception of it is going to result in the BBC getting its wings clipped
>> severely.
>>
>> Bill
>
> They have always been accused of bias, from both (or all) sides.  They
> have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to the Remoaners
> and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate change. Though of
> course they of bias by all sides.
>
> It became a joke with week after week as Question Time having three or
> four Remoaners and if they lucky one supporter of Brexit.

Have you ever noticed how Fiona Bruce will let anyone from the
(political) left or anti government have their full say but as soon as
the token Conservative panellist starts speaking FB interrupts, stops
them delivering their speech and breaks their chain of thought?

On 27/01/2022 21:37, williamwright wrote:
>
> Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond the
> very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes. It's so
> refreshing.

IMV, they ought to be renamed to "BigotsOnline" - again, every link to
their material that has been posted here has been a link to bigoted shit.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:

> On 27/01/2022 20:01, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:50:17 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
>>>
>>> Thank f**k for that!
>>
>> You're like my friend, who prefers to hear from people she agrees
>> with.  I, on the other hand, like to hear opposing arguments and to
>> make my own mind up.
>
> Then why are you listening to the echo chambers above?  Every link to either
> that has been posted in this ng has been shit.

So just clarify, you regard Times Radio to be as "bad" (in your view) as GB
News? And LBC too?

On 27/01/2022 22:54, MB wrote:
> They have been rather silly in recent years to get too close to the
> Remoaners and similarly uncritical of the claims of climate change.

I think you're understating it. It is firm written BBC policy re climate
change that "the science is settled" so no discussion, even about
different amelioration methods,is allowed.

Bill

On 27/01/2022 23:12, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 20:01, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:50:17 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/01/2022 19:39, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no BBC equivalent to LBC, or Times Radio,
>>>
>>> Thank f**k for that!
>>
>> You're like my friend, who prefers to hear from people she agrees
>> with.  I, on the other hand, like to hear opposing arguments and to
>> make my own mind up.
>
> Then why are you listening to the echo chambers above?  Every link to
> either that has been posted in this ng has been shit.
>
What an extraordinary myopic statement. You've clearly never listened to
James O'Brien or Eddie Mair on LBC !

On 27/01/2022 23:14, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 21:37, williamwright wrote:
>>
>> Thank God for GB News. Discussions that are allowed to go beyond the
>> very narrow bounds set by the BBC for their own programmes. It's so
>> refreshing.
>
> IMV, they ought to be renamed to "BigotsOnline"  -  again, every link to
> their material that has been posted here has been a link to bigoted shit.

So is their programming.
Flicking though the channels it amazes me how often the snatch of GB
News I catch is some stupid insult of something seen as left wing by
them such as The Guardian.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>
>>They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
>>youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
>
> They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!

I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom the
channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few years
ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to start
broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did they
discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not entirely
true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a broadcast
channel?

"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ssuvaj$ggp$1@dont-email.me...
> On 27/01/2022 19:17, Tweed wrote:
>> Is it a bit racy in Guernsey and Jersey then? Didn’t notice last time I
>> was
>> there….
>
>
> The "4" got lost somewhere.

4-play?

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ndh5vglq7jt2795162ogabnlta5s0h4v7i@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:01:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/01/2022 13:36, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> Might fit in rather well with the rumours that BBC 4 is to be closed
>>>
>>> They would be better closing BBC Three, we keep being told that
>>> youngsters do not watch live TV channels.
>>
>> They did close it as a TV channel and now they are reopening it !!!
>
> I've not understood the logic of reopening it. If younger people (whom the
> channel is aimed at) tend to watch on catchup rather than as a live
> broadcast, then I can see the sense in stopping broadcasting it a few years
> ago if it reduces running costs a bit. But what has prompted them to start
> broadcasting it again now? Have the viewing habits changed - or did they
> discover that "younger people tend to watch on catchup" was not entirely
> true and that there are some viewers after all who want it as a broadcast
> channel?
>
>
If it is online only it vanishes off the TV guides and EPGs. Thus it
becomes harder for people to be aware of what is available, even if you do
intend to watch it online. As an example, Sky Q and Sky Go won’t find a
programme that’s not on the EPG.