Conversation The Forum
Helper icon Helpers: Chris2mates , LLstill , PrincessFruitBat


About us


Midsummer's Eve is a free online dating community - based around friendship, real meetups, real people, and real relationships. We've been online since 1999 and have twice won Radio 2's Web Site of the Day award. So why not join us for free and join in the discussion?

Public Service

Broadcasting in the 21stC

1 2 Next >  Last >> 

Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd 7-Feb-2020 11:12 Message #4769977
Inspired by the thread on how the BBC is funded, but wishing to leave the funding issue aside as its been well discussed on the other thread, what is the purpose of public service broadcasting in the 21stC? I think this public service mission statement thing was put in place years ago when the BBC as the only provider and it remained important for the next few decades when there was only 3-5 terrestial channels and even when sky came out, but now with such an explosion of outlets does it still have a purpose and if so what?

I'd argue that it does have a purpose, its still carries a wide range of programs across the world, not just TV but radio too. I'm not a radio person, but I don't doubt the value of its output, the different channels offering different types of music, sport and news, plus the often random, but good stuff on radio 4. It gives TV and radio in all UK indigenous languages, for anyone English this may seem odd or a waste of money, or encouraging nationalism. I disagree I think its vital for the survival of these languages and unless you've lived somewhere, thats bilingual or where the majority are speaking Welsh or Gaelic then you don't really appreciate how important it is and of course many of the older generations and some of the younger ones have poor English, because its something they only use when dealing with officialdom.
Female
Aely  Female  Hampshire 7-Feb-2020 18:20 Message #4770018
I agree with you WH. I wouldn't want to be without those interesting and somewhat esoteric offerings on BBC4 and BBC Drama at its best is a world beater. BBC and SKY are both major news broadcasters but on any one day they will often cover very different topics, together giving a broader view than one channel would. And where would Netflix be without those BBC programmes it shows? Gold and many other commercial channels would die from lack of decent content if they had to rely on American bubblegum..
Female
Gilpin  Female  Middlesex 7-Feb-2020 18:45 Message #4770021
The many hats of the BBC. Their World Service is not the same as the stuff we are fed. Perhaps they wouldn't dare.

I think for drama (especially costume drama) their authenticity can't be beaten. For politics, they are so establishment it's toe curling. They will hammer a point so the masses believe its the absolute truth, and the only truth. They are the spokesperson for the nation. I don't believe a word they say myself! :) But its their job.
Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd 7-Feb-2020 18:45 Message #4770022
Thats a point Aely all the commercial channels that would have hardly any content, of course there'd be ITV's offereings and some channel 4 stuff. I wonder if the high quality of British TV drama and natural history the likes of Netflix would bother? I don't think that without the BBC ITV would do them to compete, would we have had Downton Abbey without it? I think working on those sorts of programs must be such an oportunity for so many cast and crew, to get to develop characters over weeks or even years. I just wish we could more of them.
Male
Beach  Male  Somerset 7-Feb-2020 18:55 Message #4770023
Compared to the public service broadcasting that Youtube provides in the form of informative documentaries, 'How To' videos and user examples of things as varied as dismantling a jet engine right through to baking the perfect Victoria sponge, I don't think the BBC's public service broadcasting can remotely keep up.

If you wanted to learn anything,Youtube is there to show you. The BBC can't possibly compete with that.
Male
Hierophant  Male  East Anglia 7-Feb-2020 19:29 Message #4770027
Like all publicly owned stuff, the BBC feels obliged to be all things to all people because we all (most of us) directly pay for it.
The BBC is generally fantastic doing what it does best, unfortunately it's when it tries to compete directly with other channels that it struggles, 24 hour news is a perfect example. In my opinion BBC news has dumbed down to compete with the US inspired Sky news and it has lost a lot of it's credibility.
When it comes to documentaries, nature, history and period dramas there is nothing to touch the BBC, they are in a class of their own.
Unfortunately, because of it's funding limits the BBC has lost the rights to lots of sporting fixtures which have been bought by other companies with much deeper pockets...
Female
JustLyn  Female  Cheshire 8-Feb-2020 20:08 Message #4770103
When studying research methods I would prefer the BBC to have obligation to be politically neutral and have responsibility to only broadcast evidence-based facts. Since previously discussed on pre Brexit, general election threads, people of all political bias feel the BBC is biased so some have stated it then would be about right, as it's broadcasting cannot please everyone all of the time, just some of the people some of the time.

Although I appreciate what Beach states about YouTube and being useful to look something up to learn how to do something, it is not in my opinion a valid thoroughfare for research-based viewing for facts as YouTube has zero obligation, as far as I know, to broadcast research based facts but merely the opinions of those who can put out a "good" video that could be a load of rubbish and distort public opinion by fake news, or at least mislead news and views. YouTube is the equivalent of picking up a self published propaganda leaflet.
Male
brisinger  Male  Lancashire 8-Feb-2020 21:16 Message #4770114
I don't think that you can compare BBC or TV for that matter to YouTube, they are two different beasts. I agree that YouTube is great for How To's and the likes. However, I think that they are on the whole targetted at different markets. TV are full length programmes whereas YouTube's target audience are bite size niche videos with the average video length being 11.7 minutes (statista) before there's a drop off of viewers.
IPTV on the whole targets different markets. In my opinion there's nothing better for independent factual programmes as TED Talks but that is it's target audience.
Female
JustLyn  Female  Cheshire 8-Feb-2020 22:14 Message #4770122
Not sure if I am wandering off WH intended thread, but since Bris mentioned TED talks, which I am familiar with, I looked them up, but even they are about ideas and views, not necessarily facts so they could feed for example, an individuals obsession on someone's TED lecture. Say, for example, Dawkins presented a TED talk on there not being a God, that is his educated opinion and people have their option to believe him or not, but there isn't any evidence to prove he is right or wrong, though some might think so. On the other hand, if I watch a BBC production of Panorama about how many homeless people have increased, I would have a certain amount of trust those producing the programme have bothered to research some facts that can be substantiated. Again, if Channel 5 produced a programme such as one they did on benefit claimants like "Benefit Street", they might present facts, but not a balanced selection so could influence public beliefs in a particular but skewed direction to gain viewers. I think this could be an element of why the BBC is less popular, because it is generally factual and newsworthy rather than sensationalist.
Male
brisinger  Male  Lancashire 8-Feb-2020 22:39 Message #4770124
Programmes like Panorama and channels like TED are two different beasts. Panorama is a topical current affairs programme. Programme not a channel. Whereas TED is targetted as a thought provoking based channel for lectures of topics from science to philosophy. From religion to the role of music. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd 9-Feb-2020 11:00 Message #4770161
Honestly I can't see many people who have either no interest in the topic of a TED talk or a wish to be educated watching them, I didn't know TED was a channel to be honest.

One of the main differences I can see between a YouTube video or Wikipedia etc is how reliable the information is, you may get basic facts, you may not. Theres nothing wrong with interpreting information but you need to have the correct stuff first or you're going to end up in cloud cuckoo land. Obviously tips on how to hang wallpaper etc are going to be pretty universal, but other stuff not so much, different countries have different standards for buildings and stuff.
Male
Colonel_Blink  Male  Buckinghamshire 9-Feb-2020 11:09 Message #4770164
For all it’s imperfections I think the BBC has maintained a good service and is respected internationally and domestically and it’s broadcasts are regarded as fair and honest by the majority of listeners and viewers. Without a doubt it is the world leader in broadcasting news impartially.
Female
JustLyn  Female  Cheshire 9-Feb-2020 11:10 Message #4770165
I'd put Wiki higher up than YouTube on being factual, but at least people can double check and update Wiki?

I couldn't agree more in needing to have the correct stuff or ending up in cloud cuckoo land. I think a lot of this goes on for example in evidence on vaccinating children or someone's diverse health fetish on vitamins or diets, or so-called cures for something like ME or autism.

I don't think we would get the BBC promoting a cure based on someone's whim like we could get on YouTube or a TED talk, so as Bris says, apples and pears, but even they are both fruit.
Male
Maglorian  Male  North Yorkshire 9-Feb-2020 14:00 Message #4770192
Sadly the BBC like the NHS has become a political tool of manipulation. Public services are the devil to neo liberal free market ideologs. Anything For the people has to be abolished under free market ideology. In the next 3 years we shall see it go to the private sector, along with the NHS. But Brexit will be done, for thine is their Kingdom, for ever and ever Amen. All sold for the glory of Dogma.

For those that still refuse to see the wood for the trees. Richard Bransons Virgin Care won a record £1Billion of NHS contracts last year, as £3.1Billion of health services were privatised. The Tories pledged to reduce the proportion of care provided by private companies. They lied. Private firms scooped 267 - almost 70% - of the 386 clinical contracts that were put out to tender in England during 2016 - 2017. Virgin Care pay no UK Tax.

Female
NoSaint  Female  Devon 9-Feb-2020 14:02 Message #4770194
Like all publicly owned stuff, the BBC feels obliged to be all things to all people because we all (most of us) directly pay for it.
The BBC is generally fantastic doing what it does best, unfortunately it's when it tries to compete directly with other channels that it struggles, 24 hour news is a perfect example. In my opinion BBC news has dumbed down to compete with the US inspired Sky news and it has lost a lot of it's credibility.
When it comes to documentaries, nature, history and period dramas there is nothing to touch the BBC, they are in a class of their own.
Unfortunately, because of it's funding limits the BBC has lost the rights to lots of sporting fixtures which have been bought by other companies with much deeper pockets...

Agreed.
Female
NoSaint  Female  Devon 9-Feb-2020 14:03 Message #4770195
For once I agree with ups JustLyn.

I'd put Wiki higher up than YouTube on being factual, but at least people can double check and update Wiki?

I couldn't agree more in needing to have the correct stuff or ending up in cloud cuckoo land. I think a lot of this goes on for example in evidence on vaccinating children or someone's diverse health fetish on vitamins or diets, or so-called cures for something like ME or autism.

I don't think we would get the BBC promoting a cure based on someone's whim like we could get on YouTube or a TED talk, so as Bris says, apples and pears, but even they are both fruit.
Male
brisinger  Male  Lancashire 10-Feb-2020 00:02 Message #4770253
I would compare TED more akin to programmes such as Horizon where the talks can be backed up by evidence, statistics and research such as 'Jamie Oliver's:Teach every child about food', 'Samuel Cohen's: Alzheimer's is not normal ageing — and we can cure it' or 'Alanna Shaikh: How I'm preparing to get Alzheimer's' and philosophical talks. Even those such as Richard Dawkin's (who incidentally did similar episodes on Horizon:'God on the Brain' & 'The Blind Watchmaker') as he is mentioned above have produced similar programmes on the BBC programme Horizon. TED is more like an IPTV version of Horizon but more in depth and is dedicated to it's style whereas the BBC shows a with range of genres not just dedicated programmes fact to fiction, drama to music. If you aren't into science and philosophy then TED would not be a channel for you.
Male
terry  Male  West Yorkshire 10-Feb-2020 00:56 Message #4770255
What is the purpose of public service broadcasting in the 21stC?

At it's most basic, it gives a lot of people who can either not afford subscription channels or don't wish the owners of such to know everything they do or think a place to feel part of a big wide world.
Male
Colonel_Blink  Male  Buckinghamshire 10-Feb-2020 08:00 Message #4770261
Some accuse the BBC of leaning left and others accuse it of leaning right so I suppose in a society that loves to moan and take sides, the BBC is probably getting it right.
Unlike other countries around the world the government does not control, or in some countries dictate, what is broadcast.
Female
JustLyn  Female  Cheshire 10-Feb-2020 11:25 Message #4770277
terry,

I wish a public broadcasting service did more to promote, in short adverts, more about what we the public should do in things like when we had "Keep Britain Tidy" adverts, and the Green Man road crossing safety thing. I'd be happy for some brainwashing in those directions to influence behaviour, but I guess those people might be too busy watching other channels that are now available that were not available back then. (Being old enough to have had a telly that only received BBC).
Male
HotOrWot  Male  Lancashire 10-Feb-2020 13:00 Message #4770294
I wish a public broadcasting service did more to promote, in short adverts, more about what we the public should do in things like when we had "Keep Britain Tidy" adverts, and the Green Man road crossing safety thing.

For the greater good.
Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd 10-Feb-2020 18:56 Message #4770312
Its a nice idea, but it was also incredibly patronising, I remember the Green Man road crossing thing, I also remember the Don't Die of Ignorance campaign which I think frightened people whilst leaving them ignorant of how HIV was contracted, many straight people thought it didn't apply to them and some still don't.
Female
JustLyn  Female  Cheshire 10-Feb-2020 19:50 Message #4770321
I think a bit of patronising is needed. The HIV thing sounds badly produced, but that shouldn't mean we wouldn't benefit from some messages even if some already know the answers.

Too much political correctness. I think we have gone overboard in free choice in some things that is damaging to society in general, like the stopping smoking in public places.
Male
Wandering4fun  Male  North Yorkshire 10-Feb-2020 20:00 Message #4770322
Patronising, insulting, sarcastic become insignificant when the only question to be asked is “Does it work”
Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd 11-Feb-2020 10:54 Message #4770353
Lyn, don't you remember the AIDS adverts of the 1980's?

I don't believe any patronising is needed, it puts peoples backs up and and makes them more bloody minded and likely to stick with whatever behaviour they're being told to stop. Being patronised insults the intelligence of ordinary people and is often seen as class based do as I do and not as I say, it dosen't help when you teach a child to do something obvious such as putting rubbish in a bin, only to be told all bins have been removed for seurity reasons and rubbish must now be thrown on the ground. Theres a huge difference between being given information and being told what to do, if you're given information then you can choose what to do with it, being told what to do leads to resentment and stupid enforcement efforts that end up restricting everyone and impinging on thier lives.

1 2 Next >  Last >> 


Back to top  Back to top

Help with conversations Help with conversations »