On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:06:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:17:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:
I for one have no problem with the concept of a publicly funded,
public service broadcaster; I do have a problem, though, with that
broadcaster producing crap (soap operas, game shows, "reality" shows,
etc.) using licence fee revenue.

*You* might have a problem with this, but the reality is that perhaps the
majority of the viewing public want soap operas, etc, given the viewing
figures. And since the BBC is funded by all those who possess a TV, it's
only fair the majority is catered for.

That is not, though, what the BBC is there for, nor what its licence
fee funding is intended to achieve. Commerical channels chase ratings
in order to generate advertising revenue: that's the right place for
mindless/populist "entertainment". The BBC does not *need* to compete
with such dross, and it would be entirely within its charter not to do
so.

The BBC does not pander to advertisers. They changed light entertainment in
the early 1960s with Steptoe & Son, Till Death Us Part etc, Programmes
copies in others countries. You want then to be a news channel only.

Nope - the programmes you cite here are two (of many) examples of BBC
excellence - these have/had artistic, cultural, and intellectual
merit: something that I defy anyone to claim for any of the current
"reality TV" abominations, etc. The BBC continues to make many, many
good programmes across a wide spectrum: drama, entertainment, N&CA,
documentary, ... I just don't see why (over the last 10-15 years) they
have found a need to compete with the kinds of output from ITV and Sky
that may attract big audiences but are entirely devoid of any
recognizable merit.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk