After a two-year project described as 'a huge undertaking' the BBC has worked out background music and mumbling makes broadcasters harder to hear.
Further, there is the startling revelation the problem is worse for listeners who already have some hearing loss.
Never in the world.
That the corporation is proud of this 'project' rather than ashamed of it, demonstrates how far its executives remain separated from reality.
|
|
Than heavens there are other media outlets firmly rooted in "reality", eh Iffy?
|
...Than heavens there are other media outlets firmly rooted in "reality", eh Iffy?...
Why must you attempt to turn every thread into a snipe at the Daily Mail?
I'm all in favour of a bit of drift, buy I usually give the thread a bit of breathing space first.
This story has nothing to do with any other media outlet, it is only to do with the BBC.
|
Well I find sarcasm about the BBC being adrift from reality a little rich coming form a Daily Mail supporter.
Glass houses and all that.
|
...BBC being adrift from reality a little rich coming form a Daily Mail supporter...
The reality of which I spoke was financial reality.
That is the one thing the Daily Mail is firmly wedded to.
|
|
I spend a lot of time in the US. In my view, and looking at the drivel they get over there, the BBC is a most fabulous, wonderful institution that should be treasured. The license fee is worth every penny!
|
"The license fee is worth every penny! "
No it isn't. They could do the same, or better still, less, for SUBSTANTIALLY less money. Just cut out the taxis, free handbags and amazing salaries for starters. then drop the stations, radio and tv, that they don't have programmes to fill and spend the money on programmes instead. And I don't mean "How much fluff is in your country housen on ice".
And is it not discriminatory to have an Asian station?
John
|
>> "The license fee is worth every penny! "
>>
>> No it isn't.
Compare the original output of the BBC with that of Sky. Then compare the monthly cost. Then tell me the BBC isn't worth the licence fee. Executives (and staff of all ranks come to that) in all organisations take taxis. What's the big deal? Is it something to be wildly jealous of? I've taken taxis and clamied them on expenses.
Statistical Outlier has it spot on.
The BBC naysayers want something for nothing. They will rue the day when they get what they wish and the BBC is privatised or disappears all together.
And no, it's not discriminatory to have an Asian station. Considering there are 9 (I think) other national BBC Radio stations which are all 100% non-Asian oriented. If you feel excluded because there's a station catering for the tastes of Asian Brits, then the less charitable might suggest that you're looking for something to be upset about (not me I hasten to add).
|
You may be happy to pay for the excesses of the BBC, which are well documented and which have resulted in the licence fee being frozen but I am not. I have a choice whether to take Sky or not, and I do not. I have no such choice over the BBC. The BBC does produce excellent material, but it produces a lot of tosh too. Let's keep the good stuff and drop the excesses. result, same good output, less cost. While we're about it the salaries of the top people have been exposed as being excessive and NOT "in line with market rates" as they parrot. Their expense claims would not stand up in any company i have worked for, and i have worked for some generous ones.
As for BBC Asian, explain why that is ok but it is not ok the have Midsomer Murders (which is ITV tosh).
Bottom line, I want value for money and they are not giving it.
John
|
>> Let's keep the good stuff and drop the excesses.
>> result, same good output, less cost.
What you're asking for is is output which you approve of only.
I bet you don't watch Total Wipeout, but my 6 year old loves it and he's just as much entitled to enjoy BBC output as anyone.
In order to receive the programming you enjoy from the BBC, it's necessary to participate in funding things you don't watch or listen to. You may think something is tosh, but someone, somewhere is enjoying it. This is how a Public Service Broadcaster operates. If people start to opt out, it will just become another commercial organisation churning out the lowest common denominator stuff it already produces, without the quality stuff on the top of it.
You've got to give a little to get a little.
As for the Midsomer thing, the bloke has been suspended for his poorly thought out response to the complaints. Not for the complaints themselves (complaints which I think tedious and feeble if you want to know the truth).
|
"In order to receive the programming you enjoy from the BBC, it's necessary to participate in funding things you don't watch or listen to. You may think something is tosh, but someone, somewhere is enjoying it. "
A, sit down. Are you ready? I agree.
But, isn't there always a "but"?,
1. Do you really think that they have enough programmes to cover all of those channels? BBC Three appears to be the Doctor Who channel. Two children's channels? As well as children's programmes on BBC1 & 2? What if they dropped a channel or two, tv & radio, and spent the money on programmes? Is that such a bad idea?
Incidentally I am most certainly not advocating dropping the children's channels. I have no idea how good or necessary they are. I restrict myself to Shaun the Sheep.
2. Their waste is well documented, especially at the very highest levels. Meanwhile the foot soldiers lose their jobs. Or do you dispute that?
John
|
>> BBC Three appears to be the Doctor Who channel.
Couldn't comment, I rarely trouble that channel. But I don't advocate it's removal as I know people who enjoy it.
>> Two children's channels?
They cater for different age groups. Much the same way as Nickelodeon has a Nick Jr channel. Should the BBC not be competing with commercial broadcasters?
>> As well
>> as children's programmes on BBC1 & 2?
I expect this is a legacy which will remain in place until the digital switchover is complete. The BBC need to be seen to providing their service to the whole country and can't do this if they start restricting certain types of output to digital platforms at this time.
>> Their waste is well documented, especially at the very highest levels. Meanwhile the >> foot
>> soldiers lose their jobs. Or do you dispute that?
I neither dispute nor accept that. I don't know anything about it as I don't care. So far as I'm concerned the BBC is a bargain so I'm genuinely not bothered. People are losing their jobs in all industries at the moment, often whilst the top bosses cream off the profits. I'm a bit more peeved with the banks than the BBC at the moment to be frank.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 15:56
|
"I don't know anything about it as I don't care"
But you're prepared to argue about it. OK.
John
|
The allegations of waste are well documented. I regard F1 as a complete waste but I wouldn't deny others their fix.
The proof that extravagance is a significant proportion of the corporation's spend is less forthcoming.
|
|
Ah, Bromptonaut, you've summed it up beautifully. Bullseye (which I don't think should be remade by the BBC or anyone).
|
Blimey, do you work in journalism? Talk about take one statement out of context.
I presume you think the rest of my post is entirely reasonable then.
I believe we're charged a reasonable fee for BBC services. They take a small amount of money from me and provide me and my family with superb entertainment, news, radio, online services, etc.
They produce things I don't like too (e.g local radio traffic announcements ;-)). Guess what? I don't watch/listen to them.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 16:08
|
If I compare my £145.50 for the BBC (and ITV/C4/C5 - some of the BBC money goes into broadcast infrastructure) program output, against the £4-500 for Sky program output, value for money suddenly becomes a clear shaft of light from the heavens.
And I don't mean from the satellite. While we have current Sky pricing, we have a clear case for the value of the BBC.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 16:58
|
|
You are absolutely right Zero - Damn it.
|
...While we have current Sky pricing, we have a clear case for the value of the BBC...
The two are not easily comparable.
Sky is a subscription service, the BBC is a public service broadcaster.
A basic Sky package is available for no more than the licence fee, although you would have to pay the licence fee on top of the payment to Sky.
Sky's premium sports and movie packages slaughter the BBC in terms of output, and so they should, they cost enough.
The BBC may well be good value for money - I've never complained about paying the licence fee - but that doesn't make Sky poor value.
|
"A basic Sky package is available for no more than the licence fee,"
Is it? - cheapest deal I can find is £19.50 per month on their website
|
..Is it? - cheapest deal I can find is £19.50 per month on their website...
I think the £20 one includes broadband and possibly some phone calls.
There's also a 'one-off' payment package which I couldn't find on their website the last time we looked for it.
|
|
Was this prompted by the report I heard on the radio this morning that there had been ~400 complaints about the background music being too loud in Brian Cox's 'Wonders of the Universe'?
|
It does come over rather as:
"I say, old chap, if we turn the music down a bit d'ya think you might hear the speech a bit better? You do? Good. "
Ticks clipboard.
"And you sir, if we turn the music down a bit d'ya think you might hear the speech a bit better? You do? Good. "
Ticks clipboard.
Repeated twenty thousand times apparently, which seems like a lot of times.
At the end of which they say,
"You know what, let's write a report and publish it, and put it out as a style guide for producers, shouldn't cost too much, few grand maybe, and the conclusion will be - and hold on to your hats here everyone - that if we turn the music down a bit then you might hear the speech a bit better."
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 15 Mar 11 at 11:28
|
Good thinking CC but surely a few "workshops" would be needed? A bit of role play? Not to mention a damn good lunch.
John
|
>> Good thinking CC but surely a few "workshops" would be needed? A bit of role
>> play? Not to mention a damn good lunch.
>>
All done somewhere hot and sunny half way around the world of course.
|
The story may be apocryphal, but it was reported many years ago that it was not possible to get a grand piano into several of the studios at BBC Manchester.
The powers that be instructed the carpenters shop to make a full size, lightweight mock up.
They were unable to get it out of the shop, as it was too big to go through the door.
|
I'll give another vote to the BBC.... absolute bargain status as far as I'm concerned too. Tiny bit of *waste* at the top? So what.... any organisation carefully examined will have that issue.
My only concern is that they manage to properly continue an effective BBC Monitoring service after it's recent funding changes.
|
at about 40p a day Auntie is undoubtedly a bargain, but there is almost certainly room for a bit of cost cutting at the top of the pyramid, and there are aspects of the corporation that do make you dispair, particularly things like the report the OP refers too.
If I could find out who is responsible for the music played as the headlines are read at breakfast time (the sort of rumbling drums that change in to a particularly awful screech as Carol tells us what yesterdays weather was) I'd happily disembowel them without any background noise to cover their pain - they cause me enough.
|
|
It's the shrink the credits and plug the next program, regardless of whether there has just been something that would make that completely inappropriate, that makes me want to disembowl someone.
|
Blimey - BBC listening to the licence payers? - Iffy
