Post by Teddy Bear on Apr 8, 2011 23:38:36 GMT
I love to see the BBC shafting themselves, and showing just how they try to twist truth in the process.
A few weeks ago we were told by the Director General Mark Thompson that as part of the strategy to save money, among other things, the BBC would be showing repeats of various 'quality' programmes for which he included 'South Riding'.
Here's how he put it to show just how 'beneficial' it would be to the public:
Keep in mind this phrase: the public get a sense of more value from it than less?’
Now he's discovered that the royalties they would have to pay out for repeats of South Riding could actually cost a lot more than making new programmes and is having to do a rethink BBC 'can't afford more repeats' because actors' royalty fees cost more than new programming
Can you imagine any private company surviving on such decision making? You'd think that these BBC executives, who are so highly paid because in the words of the BBC 'they need to pay high salaries to get the best brains for the job', would have researched their strategy a little more thoroughly before announcing it.
But then not really thinking out their strategy typifies the BBC mindset, just some aspects of it will take a little while longer until they realise what a mistake they've made. Question is, will the society survive their existing agenda before that happens?
A few weeks ago we were told by the Director General Mark Thompson that as part of the strategy to save money, among other things, the BBC would be showing repeats of various 'quality' programmes for which he included 'South Riding'.
Here's how he put it to show just how 'beneficial' it would be to the public:
Under the proposals Dramas such as South Riding could be repeated up to four times.
Also under the suggestions:
- Much of BBC2’s daytime output could be axed and replaced with rolling news;
- Some or all of the BBC’s ‘overnight’ programming could be scrapped, meaning no programmes after 10.35pm, except scheduled current affairs programmes such as Newsnight;
- ‘Fewer, bigger and better’ current affairs shows would be commissioned.
- Foreign imports would be cut back.
- Output of local radio and regional TV programmes would be reduced.
When asked if the proposed ideas meant the BBC would make less TV, Mr Thompson said: ‘That lies behind quite a lot of this. In other words, is it possible to make fewer hours of television, to make them to a higher quality and to play them out in ways where, actually, the public get a sense of more value from it than less?’
Repeats could focus on big budget dramas such as South Riding, which tells the story of a headmistress in 1930s Yorkshire, and natural history shows, such as Sir David Attenborough’s Nature’s Great Events.
Mr Thompson said: ‘Is there a case for showing our best programmes more often in their premiere week?
‘If you have done South Riding, why show it only once? The public tell us it is very different to be given two or three chances to see a programme in its first week, than be told you are going to live on repeats from two or three years ago.
BBC Director General Mark Thompson said it was looking to see if there was a case for investing less in off-peak programming
‘The idea that a BBC1 drama like South Riding, which is shown on BBC1 on a Sunday night, might be shown on BBC2 the following Wednesday and perhaps gets a couple of airings on BBC3 or BBC4... that doesn’t seem unreasonable.’
Keep in mind this phrase: the public get a sense of more value from it than less?’
Now he's discovered that the royalties they would have to pay out for repeats of South Riding could actually cost a lot more than making new programmes and is having to do a rethink BBC 'can't afford more repeats' because actors' royalty fees cost more than new programming
Can you imagine any private company surviving on such decision making? You'd think that these BBC executives, who are so highly paid because in the words of the BBC 'they need to pay high salaries to get the best brains for the job', would have researched their strategy a little more thoroughly before announcing it.
But then not really thinking out their strategy typifies the BBC mindset, just some aspects of it will take a little while longer until they realise what a mistake they've made. Question is, will the society survive their existing agenda before that happens?