Too much information
Comments
-
I may well be, Rufs, but I suspect it is a sizeable proportion nonetheless.
I responded to another who made reference to turning the TV off via its on/off switch but you took it to a whole new level and it is that which warrants an apology.
0 -
If I might be allowed to express an opinion .....
I have the greatest of respect for the main members of the royal family (a few too many "hangers on" IMHO but that's another matter all together).
The years of sacrifice and service which Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip have given this country is undeniable and the benefit the DofE scheme has had on millions of youngsters is inestimable.
Philip's death at the age of 99 was very sad even if not totally unexpected, the more so since it happened on his eldest son's wedding anniversary.
The coverage was fascinating and deserved .... but should (again IMHO) have been restricted to the main BBC channel. I trust the BBC will have learned the lesson when the funeral takes place.
Most telling, though, or so it seems to me, is that his own wish for a simple funeral with the minimum of fuss would have left him aghast at the blanket coverage on Friday, and, not to add, totally bemused that, so far, 7 pages of forum posts have been devoted to it!
5 -
I think we need to get this in perspective. The BBC has a duty to cover such events in depth, hopefully most would understand this. The complaint as I see it is not about the coverage but the fact that they decided to run the exact same programming over three channels and completely take another off air. I perfectly understand that BBC1 and the BBC News Channel would have the same content as they reach different audiences. The puzzlement is why they needed to run the same content on BBC2 and close BBC4. It could be of course that they felt it was disrespectful to run "light entertainment" on other of their channels given the seriousness of the occasion. It will be interesting to see the BBC's reaction to the complaints they have received?
David
2 -
You were right in an earlier comment DK. They are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. I recall Beeb being considered a tad irreverent at the time of the Queen Mother’s funeral, mainly because one of the news readers hadn’t been wearing a black tie.
But it’s a paid for service nowadays, whilst still purporting to be the “National” broadcaster.
0 -
I’m sorry WTG but you have me stumped, you were never mentioned nor even intimated at🤷🏻♂️. I’d love to understand your post.
PS-‘freedom of choice’, yup me too👍🏻
0 -
I suppose it was a paid for service at one time, when it was all that was available. However, now what you are paying for is the right to receive transmissions over the air. It does not matter if you never watch BBC programmes but only Pick or CBS, you still have to pay.
0 -
Isn’t it a paid for service now, Steve, as it's funded by the licence fee?
0 -
My point was what you are paying for is the right to receive electronic transmissions. Personally I am happy to pay for the news alone.
However, if I never watched BBC coverage, I would still have to pay. I might then be indirectly funding the BBC, but I wouldn’t be paying to watch their output. There is a subtle difference. In the past when it was the only option, if you didn’t want it you wouldn’t buy a TV license.
0 -
This explains the License Fee.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51376255
if you own and use a TV, or stream programmes in the UK, you have to pay the License Fee, even if you never watch or listen to anything broadcast by the BBC. You pay to watch anything broadcast/streamed to any device.
0 -
I’ve noticed that most can disagree intelligently whilst conceiving points of weakness & continuing a positive relationship. Then there are a few that Wade in throwing verbal punches with no forethought. I was questioning the need to put the passing of HRH on so many channels but it was hijacked & repackaged as near Royalists vs Republicans🤷🏻♂️
3 -
Mmm, exactly what I found.
2 -
👍🏻. I have no beef with Royalty I don’t bother them & they swerve me👍🏻😁
1 -
+ 1 to that👍
0 -
There's a history behind it starting with radio licences then TV licences, I presume the licence fees have helped to develop transmission opportunities in general with a great degree of indepence not found in the commercial sector. People are paying extra for companies like sky and Netflix but these companies are controlled by commercial interests, the BBC is free of those shackles and can commission a broader range of programmes. I think complaints about the BBC are about commissioning too much rather than in house production. They've paired things back due to financial constraints. So yes some are paying for a service they don't use but I'd be sad to lose out to commercial interests. (Even if, on rare occasions, the BBC appear to get it wrong. )
0 -
Talk about a thread being highjacked ! Of the 84 posts as a result of my OP only 1 actually answered my comments and another, after re-reading, believed it was just a general complaint about the BBC. No it wasn't.
At no point in my OP did I make any comment about the amount of coverage or the fact that the very same broadcast was on at least three BBC channels simultaneously even though I was disappointed by this. It was not the purpose of the post. It was about straplines and banners obliterating the screen and covering important information or images, for those that haven't bothered to read it.
I know threads can drift away from the OP, I've been guilty myself, but it appeared that people just wanted to complain about the coverage and my OP was a vehicle for them to immediately jump on to. It makes me wonder if it is ever worth asking a straightforward question on here.
5 -
OK, John, to answer the question raised in the first para of your OP, no I don't.
Have you complained to the BBC about the banners? The link I provided earlier can be used for that purpose.
I think it was inevitable that the thread went the way it did and I'm surprised you didn't anticipate that.
0 -
The "blanket coverage" that was broadcast was not an off the cuff cobbled together ,it would have been,, as many of that type of programmes ready for months if not years, with just dates and extra on the day inputs already to be transmiited ,and the the persons who it was about would have been aware of what was to haapen
0 -
Here’s another one-no it bothers me not one iota, in fact I appreciate it rather than have someone padding out their on screen time. I’d prefer(for me) to have all the relevant info as straplines on the screen. Your thread would be dead in the water shortly after you posted it without the thread drift🤷🏻♂️
0 -
I made brief reference to your dislike of the banners in my response. And yes I also raised the issue of how the blanket coverage of an event left many rather baffled about what was going on, or complaining because their viewing preferences had been altered. Sorry if it took your opening post away from the intended debate/ observation.
Try Channel 4 News, I don’t think the use of rolling news updates is as bad on there, and it’s usually a more in depth look at issues, rather than the hurried scurry through you get on the BBC or ITV news programmes.
Not sure how much else can be said about a news format that almost every single broadcaster has adopted, or can it be made any better? It is what it is🤷♀️
0 -
I admitted, I didn't read the question properly, probably due to coming in via latest activity and so only looking at the latest comments.
But I did say had you watched ITV on Saturday the coverage was good and Cardiff Castle wasn't obscured by banners. Yes information superimposed on screens can detract from the actual programme and you can contact the BBC with your ideas about improvements.
0