|
OwlFancier posted:I think the only things I watch are weird media analysis videos, the odd politics thing, and lets plays on youtube, all of which are significantly more interesting and thoughtful than anything I have ever seen on a TV so I can't see why I would go back. Skarsnik posted:Strong 'well I don't even own a TV
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:24
|
|
' energy ITT right now
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
winegums posted:Struggling to think of who would really care in 10y time. Isn't that what Britbox partly is? A friend in the US has subscribed to that. Can't remember if it was someone in this thread asking about audiobooks, but a friend just shared this link on facebook - a whole youtube channel dedicated to audio books: https://www.youtube.com/user/gordontickle/videos VVV yeah, I'm not interested in Britbox. Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jan 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
^ Britbox is late, expensive and incomplete.OwlFancier posted:I think the only things I watch are weird media analysis videos, the odd politics thing, and lets plays on youtube, all of which are significantly more interesting and thoughtful than anything I have ever seen on a TV so I can't see why I would go back. The BBC should be making that kind of content. The BBC should be running its own twitch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
josh04 posted:The BBC should be making that kind of content. The BBC should be running its own twitch. If I wanted twitch but full of nonces, I would just watch twitch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Like necessarily I do not see how the things I have an interest in watching would be improved by putting them in the hands of a single, monolithic production company, publicly funded or not. I like watching things that have a strong individual style to them and are made by people who are genuinely interested in the thing they are talking about, involving more people in that is not going to improve it, it's just going to make it more formulaic and dull, which is already the reason i don't enjoy watching tv shows as a class of media. I would rather watch a guy taking watches to bits, or a guy cleaning out water drainage systems, than watch TV. And I already can, I don't need the BBC to come along and edit it and add some lovely gameshow host or whatever to do voiceover work. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:lol at people assuming that Netflix et al don't make things like arts programmes, presumably just because they don't show up on the "recommended for you" lists Netflix made game of thrones every history period essentially, at least with historians providing context now and then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
State funded content creators draw in a lot of engagement, but this is in part due to the state platform's compatibility with legacy hardware.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Like necessarily I do not see how the things I have an interest in watching would be improved by putting them in the hands of a single, monolithic production company, publicly funded or not. I like watching things that have a strong individual style to them and are made by people who are genuinely interested in the thing they are talking about, involving more people in that is not going to improve it, it's just going to make it more formulaic and dull, which is already the reason i don't enjoy watching tv shows as a class of media. Twitch and YouTube are effectively private monopolies already, but for profit and run by libertarian tech megacorps. I'm not saying the BBC should run a Twitch channel, I'm saying they should run Twitch itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Prole posted:Do you ever get the feeling that we're living through the last days of a dying system? It's insane. Nobody seems to have any kind of care for life - it's all about preservation of careers. Short term victory. Like they don't *expect* much in the long term. Fwiw this is a something that comes up throughout recorded history, everyone thinks the society they live in is in decline, on the brink of collapse under its own decay. They tend to be wrong, except when they're not. The, complete, dramatic, violent implosion of societies is relatively rare. Its much more common to see the existential pressures be gradually resolved though slow adaptation. The big difference with our own time, though, is climate change, given the time sensitivity, so  TACD posted:My impression was that TV is largely only watched by olds now anyway (“old” meaning anybody mid-30s or older) — are kids these days really still sitting down to watch shows instead of just doing YouTube / Netflix and torrents? Even older that that probably. I'm 32 and I've never in my adult life sat down and just browsed TV except for when I'm in hotels etc, I don't even have an aerial. Why bother when you can stream whatever immediately over the internet? I feel like the only people sitting down and watching TV in the old sense are people 40+, maybe even a bit older than that. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jan 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Humanity will pull through, it's just a question of how much it suffers in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
The Conservative party has its hooks in every seat of power in the BBC. It's a lot like the Labour Party in that regard, and there is no guarantee that with its destruction something better will take its place. Having said that, lol, suck it jabronis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Entertainment production is one area where I think a libertarian megacorp is capable of producing better things than a state run solution, not that all or even a majority of its output is good, but that I just do not think that something like the BBC is going to afford the level of freedom to creators to let them make the things I actually like to watch, you can find actually interesting stuff existing in the margins, at least. If you put the BBC in charge of youtube they'd probably just try to bring all of the most profitable producers in-house and then stop bothering with any of the smaller ones, which may already be the way the services are headed but I don't think that nationalizing it would make it better, because I don't think that the government is going to be any less incentivized to do that than private enterprise does. The BBC is just a different way to gatekeep what people get to see and make, I simply do not want some lovely bunch of corporate assholes involved in deciding what I want to watch, state run or private. I want something that lets anybody who wants to, make content they like making and lets people who want to watch it, find it, and that's it. So what I want is youtube and a UBI. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jan 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
JoylessJester posted:Even the BBCs defenders 'trump card' an Attenborough doc I thought the BBC’s trump card was Adam Curtis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I don't even have an aerial. I got mine taken down at the same time that I was having a broken roof tile repaired, bloke reckoned that it was originally put up so carelessly (strapped to the chimney with cables just slung down the roof) that it'd save me trouble in the long run. I got one of those cheap freesat boxes to use with the old sky dish in the event that I did need to watch live TV for Johnson's latest "you must do this but I won't, wif waf" or whatever but other than a few rugby matches I just haven't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
good riddance to bad rubbish
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:The Conservative party has its hooks in every seat of power in the BBC. It's a lot like the Labour Party in that regard, and there is no guarantee that with its destruction something better will take its place. That's tbh one of the sadly ironic parts because after destroying the BBC they'd realise they'd just destroyed a bunch of the plum jobs they can give to their mates and friends of their mates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Also call me cynical but this has clearly been announced now to try and distract the blue tick brigade from Johnson and his partys. That's not even a conspiracy, it was clearly announced as part of the Boris Fight Back strategy. OwlFancier posted:Like necessarily I do not see how the things I have an interest in watching would be improved by putting them in the hands of a single, monolithic production company, publicly funded or not. I like watching things that have a strong individual style to them and are made by people who are genuinely interested in the thing they are talking about, involving more people in that is not going to improve it, it's just going to make it more formulaic and dull, which is already the reason i don't enjoy watching tv shows as a class of media. The BBC used to be terrific at doing stuff that did have a strong individual style. Ken Loach & Dennis Potter & so forth. Then of course thread favourite Margaret Thatcher oversaw change which lead to the BBC having to put shows out to tender & we are left with slop. It's loving gash & is entirely the problem with the BBC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
whether or not they're going through with it, it seems to be a case of "please have the plebians talk about anything other than the party"
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Entertainment production is one area where I think a libertarian megacorp is capable of producing better things than a state run solution, not that all or even a majority of its output is good, but that I just do not think that something like the BBC is going to afford the level of freedom to creators to let them make the things I actually like to watch, you can find actually interesting stuff existing in the margins, at least. This is just...wrong. The cool poo poo on the margins isn't going to exist in a free market free for all & I have no loving idea how someone who posts in this thread & generally has right takes can come to the view that the source of the BBC being bad is that the free market would do it better. Pressures of the market simply means a race to the bottom. loving Ancient Aliens & Secret of Oak Island & all this absolute brain rot dreck my father seems addicted to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
YouTube being a free platform where anyone can upload and distribute video content is basically sponsored by Google and at some point, gradually or not, they will turn off the tap on what has become essential infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Danger - Octopus! posted:That's tbh one of the sadly ironic parts because after destroying the BBC they'd realise they'd just destroyed a bunch of the plum jobs they can give to their mates and friends of their mates. Nah they're just going to make it commercial as gently caress. All the plum jobs will still be there, the BBC will just become like any other TV provider until it ends up privatised like everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
"I don't even own any cells that might turn cancerous." "My 96-year-old mother just up and died one day, so what good is it really?" "i jus share my sisters netflixhelf subscribton lol,,," Just rolling the arguments forward 5 years. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
I watch the one show every weekday night to keep my finger on the pulse of the nation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Yeah, for all its faults the BBC makes really cool stuff that would never be produced by a commercial organisation because it isn't always looking to maximise profit. Do you really believe the free market would tolerate half of the poo poo BBC 4 puts out? What's that, a documentary about mushroom foraging followed by a two and half hours on the social organisation of a failing 19th navy outpost in the Caribbean? Aye, as if. We genuinely would be poorer without these niche little shows all of thirty people watch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Also call me cynical but this has clearly been announced now to try and distract the blue tick brigade from Johnson and his partys. Not even that, it's explicitly a bribe aimed at Murdoch et. al. to get them back onside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
All I have left is laughing as these great liberal institutions own actions inevitably bring about the very outcomes they claim they wished to avoid - but interestingly never enough to actually take any actions to change things for the better. At this juncture, I despise The Guardian, loathe The Labour party, and am happy to revel in the death of BBC - watching them slowly sabotage themselves to the point that they are a grotesque parody of anything that they ever once stood for, or at least aspired (or maybe just claimed) to be, is getting tiresome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
I'm sure the new corporate channel will be equally committed to programmes for and about disabled people/in Gaelic or Welsh/with a regional focus. They will definitely provide skilled live BSL translators when the Government schedules important announcements but forgets deaf people exist. And don't forget this is coming off the back of the Channel 4 ownership change. If people won't watch GB News by choice then the government will remove that choice. The BBC has 5 years to create a subscription package that allows access to its back catalogue, assuming it can get the rights back off Dave. There will definitley be gammons willing to pay a subscription to get their fix of Porridge and Only Fools and Horses. Want to see the glory of days of Top Gear? Subscribe. Every Dr Who episode that survives? Subscribe. Kids' programmes on an endless loop? Subscribe. It's going to be interesting to see all the different ways they'll screw it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
Lady Demelza posted:The BBC has 5 years to create a subscription package that allows access to its back catalogue, assuming it can get the rights back off Dave. There will definitley be gammons willing to pay a subscription to get their fix of Porridge and Only Fools and Horses. Want to see the glory of days of Top Gear? Subscribe. Every Dr Who episode that survives? Subscribe. Kids' programmes on an endless loop? Subscribe. That's just Britbox though. That exists. That so few people realise it's out there is, I think, testament to how few people actually *want* old repeats rather than just settling for them because there's sod all else on. This is the problem with the "what about the GOOD programmes?" argument: which good programmes? Michael Portillo on a train? Ann Widdicombe doing ballroom dancing? Boris Johnson presenting HIGNFY? Jim Davidson as a guest on the new "anti-woke" BBC Radio 4 comedy showcase? A host of daytime tripe about "those annoying gypsies" or "benefit scroungers"? Everyone likes something the BBC puts out, of course. But is that enough to offset the harm it causes as a tool of the state these days? Also, many of the larger entertainment or drama programmes aren't made in-house anyway. My mum won £25k on In It To Win It, the BBC lottery gameshow. Her check came from ITV. Dr Who is to be made by Bad Wolf Productions going forward. And those shows still made in-house are co-priductuons with Starz, the commercial BBC America, or Canadian TV companies etc. Prole fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jan 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Yeah, for all its faults the BBC makes really cool stuff that would never be produced by a commercial organisation because it isn't always looking to maximise profit. Do you really believe the free market would tolerate half of the poo poo BBC 4 puts out? What's that, a documentary about mushroom foraging followed by a two and half hours on the social organisation of a failing 19th navy outpost in the Caribbean? Aye, as if. We genuinely would be poorer without these niche little shows all of thirty people watch. You're not wrong, but the current model of bullying people into paying more than any other subscription service regardless of if you watch any of it clearly isn't a good compromise. Ideally you'd roll the infrastructure and funding for niche programming into state expenditure, but I appreciate we aren't going to get that with the Tories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Lady Demelza posted:I'm sure the new corporate channel will be equally committed to programmes for and about disabled people/in Gaelic or Welsh/with a regional focus. They will definitely provide skilled live BSL translators when the Government schedules important announcements but forgets deaf people exist. People will get what media they're willing to fight for and defend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
arts stuff on netflix is hot garbage, basically either game shows or too stupid to be educational bbc 4 has like 12 viewers but is miles ahead
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Welsh language TV only existed in the first place because Gwynfor Evans and some other Plaid guys threatened a hunger strike, it wasn't something that the British state did out of the goodness of its own heart. Worth noting too that BBC Wales has precisely zero Welsh language programming. S4C (admittedly funded by the license fee in part) holds all the cards there. A channel that has on more than one occasion recorded ZERO viewers per day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:You're not wrong, but the current model of bullying people into paying more than any other subscription service regardless of if you watch any of it clearly isn't a good compromise. Ideally you'd roll the infrastructure and funding for niche programming into state expenditure, but I appreciate we aren't going to get that with the Tories. Yeah I just don't pay it lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Lady Demelza posted:I'm sure the new corporate channel will be equally committed to programmes for and about disabled people/in Gaelic or Welsh/with a regional focus. They will definitely provide skilled live BSL translators when the Government schedules important announcements but forgets deaf people exist. Dave is already owned by the BBC. UKTV was originally a joint venture between them and Thames after Thames lost their ITV franchise (but you'd be a  lunatic to believe that they lost it to the Tory-donating Carlton bid because of Death On The Rock). Thames sold up their share after the Fremantle takeover, because Fremantle thought FTA television was a dead end compared to the exciting new world of... DVD box sets. BBC Worldwide actually contribute more to the BBC's coffers than the license fee (as the name suggests they're responsible for licensing BBC content around the world, including to non-BBC UK services like Britbox).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
Didn't a BBC employee here say that they have access to a secret internal version of the iPlayer that basically has access to every single thing ever broadcast on BBC television and were watching Blackadder and Ghostwatch and whatever the gently caress from the 70s at will? Monetise access to that archive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
winegums posted:they could have lead the way in digital adaptation. Could have made boatloads launching a BBC Netflix of "all the poo poo we can find in our archives" and selling it internationally. They could not because Rupert Murdoch specifically lobbied to prevent them from doing anything like that. 'Unfair competition' see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:Didn't a BBC employee here say that they have access to a secret internal version of the iPlayer that basically has access to every single thing ever broadcast on BBC television and were watching Blackadder and Ghostwatch and whatever the gently caress from the 70s at will? Monetise access to that archive. I'd much rather see it made public and free and paid for through general taxation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I'd much rather see it made public and free and paid for through general taxation. Yup. This.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
However twisted out of shape compared to the halcyon days of Andi Peters and Art Attack, there's a lot to be said for a platform that gives you all kinds of random stuff with a mission to educate, inform and entertain as opposed to maximising eyeball-hours or whatever metric youtube uses. Netflix and Youtube are designed to trap you on platform by giving you content that never challenges your perceived tastes, because that might make you switch it off. That's not healthy. A better funding model is absolutely needed. Either fund it through general taxation and be honest about what "state broadcaster" really means, or turn iplayer into a monthly subscription platform like its competition and stop flogging all the best shows to Netflix. Calling for the end of the BBC because it's crap and the license fee is terrible is just falling for the same tory schtick again- fabricate a crisis and then pretend your solution is the only one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
AKA Starve The Beeb
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 19:43
|
|
