The BBC: Has it gone down hill since the move to Manchester?

[Mutant Lemming]

Can't help thinking that since it's move to "Manchester" that the BBC has gone right down the toilet.

Is it a sneaky move to facilitate potential future privatisation or do they just want to destroy public broadcasting ?

 

[Iskra]

I think it's more popular broadcasting/culture has gone right downhill, rather than the BBC specifically. Can't remember the last time I watched anything on ITV it's that full of inane bilge. The BBC tries to compete with ITV for audience share.

 

[telstarbox]

Most of the BBC is still in London.

 

[pdeaves]

I'd say yes, the BBC has gone downhill, simply because in May they are taking off air the only programmes I listen to on Radio 2. All three of them!

 

[yorksrob]

I'd say yes, the BBC has gone downhill, simply because in May they are taking off air the only programmes I listen to on Radio 2. All three of them!

Which ones are they taking off, may I ask ?

I wrote a strongly worded email when they took off Radcliffe & Marconie a few years back.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I think it's more popular broadcasting/culture has gone right downhill, rather than the BBC specifically. Can't remember the last time I watched anything on ITV it's that full of inane bilge. The BBC tries to compete with ITV for audience share.

I think you're probably right there - I find commercial television almost unwatchable because of how intrusive the commercials now are but the in the morning when you just want the time and travel info before heading out to work the BBC has become so excruciatingly banal that I watch the ITV now in the morning. I do wonder had it stayed in the capital though would it have been so quick to race to the bottom.

 

[takno]

I think you're probably right there - I find commercial television almost unwatchable because of how intrusive the commercials now are but the in the morning when you just want the time and travel info before heading out to work the BBC has become so excruciatingly banal that I watch the ITV now in the morning. I do wonder had it stayed in the capital though would it have been so quick to race to the bottom.

I'm not sure moving some departments to Manchester (amongst other places) would cause a decline in quality. It was done as part as a substantial pile of budget cuts, which might mean they have less money to spend on stuff you'd enjoy. I used to avidly watch TV news, but I find all of it like pulling teeth now. Whether that's because I've changed or the BBC has changed I couldn't really say.

 

[90sWereBetter]

The BBC brought back Raven late last year, as far as I'm concerned that makes any criticism of the corporation invalid. That show easily makes the licence fee a bargain.

On a more serious note, I tend to find myself paternally defending the BBC, like I do with the NHS. You'll miss it when it's gone.

 

[Bevan Price]

The BBC is imperfect, but it is the best we are ever likely to get in UK. Moving to Salford has slightly reduced the over-concentration on London, but has otherwise not caused many changes. There are some changes I wish they would make - for example drop their obsession with tired soaps and never-ending recurring dramas and go on & on & on & on & on forever, instead of making room for new innovative drama.

I also with they would forget about "age-targetting" of channels, especially on radio. They already have 2 radio channels for teens & sub-teens (R1, R1X), R2 is devoting more and more time to current or fairly recent pop singles; when I get time to listen, R6 also seems to feature slightly lots of older "singles" - but the vast source of album tracks (rock, blues, country, etc.) is largely ignored. Part of their mandate ought to be to "inform / educate" listeners about a wide range of music - not just to aid the "pop music industery" to sell "pop tracks".

 

[pdeaves]

Which ones are they taking off, may I ask ?

The Blues Show (Paul Jones)
The Organist Entertains (Nigel Ogden)
Listen To The Band (Frank Renton)

The quoted reason for removing these programmes is, apparently, to 'broaden the appeal' of Radio 2. From my point of view, it narrows the appeal!

 

[yorksrob]

The Blues Show (Paul Jones)
The Organist Entertains (Nigel Ogden)
Listen To The Band (Frank Renton)

The quoted reason for removing these programmes is, apparently, to 'broaden the appeal' of Radio 2. From my point of view, it narrows the appeal!

Ah cheers. I don't listen to those programmes personally, but I sympathise with your position !

 

[GusB]

The Blues Show (Paul Jones)
The Organist Entertains (Nigel Ogden)
Listen To The Band (Frank Renton)

The quoted reason for removing these programmes is, apparently, to 'broaden the appeal' of Radio 2. From my point of view, it narrows the appeal!

I hadn't realised that Listen to the Band was still on the go. The last time I listened to (and recorded) the show was probably in my late teens, and the late Roy Newsome was the presenter. I was never a big Radio 2 listener, but it's sad to see these long-running programmes disappear.

 

[Butts]

I think it's more popular broadcasting/culture has gone right downhill, rather than the BBC specifically. Can't remember the last time I watched anything on ITV it's that full of inane bilge. The BBC tries to compete with ITV for audience share.

You should try Endeavour on Sunday Nights - that's quite good.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Bargain Hunt
Homes Under the Hammer
Escape to the Country

"Padding dross" such as these perhaps are just one way of letting the BBC inform their viewing public of what licence fee restrictions can mean in the lessening of quality programmes that will ensue as a result.

 

[Senex]

Is there an implication in the original post that anything not produced in London has to be inferior?

 

[IanD]

Dan Walker. 'Nuff said.

 

[Smethwickian]

I still find myself watching more BBC than ITV in general and usually try to watch those ITV programmes recorded as the channel is virtually unwatchable 'live' because of up to 20 minutes per hour of repetitive, banal, crass or sickeningly twee commercials and endlessly repeated trailers.
If I do end up watching ITV as broadcast I genuinely find myself hitting the mute button more and more often to avoid hearing the same inane jingles seven or eight times in a two-hour drama, for example.

 

[Howardh]

Can't link to any actual figures, but for any channel aren't viewing figures down drastically from what they were years ago when three/four channels were available/ Ie a Saturday night show might top, what, 5m when 30 years ago it would have been twice that? Of course the same audience is spread around a multitude of channels, we can watch on catch-up etc; but I would have thought that the main reason was as alluded to above....it's just dross, padding, constant ads on commercial channels and more dross, fluff, filler and dross.

Apart from sport, I can't recall a time when I looked at a TV listings and said "oh, I must watch that" and I don't take a paper now or search out listings on the web, I've given up. I'll dip in to 24 hrs news and the Daily Politics show, but that's just about it.

One thing irritates me above and beyond, and that's when sport on a pay-channel contains ads. The subscriptions for both BT and Sky are enormous, IMO they could easily drop the ads and trailers and let the sport flow. To me, ads = free TV, a sub = commercial free TV. So, yes, I'd pay slightly more for an ad-free sports service (as I would for commentry-free options!!).

 

[Strat-tastic]

Maybe it's just the times I watched, but the presenters at the Winter Olympics were all women bar one.

Where's the equality PPC*?

(Propaganda & Political Correctness)

 

[ainsworth74]

but the in the morning when you just want the time and travel info before heading out to work the BBC has become so excruciatingly banal that I watch the ITV now in the morning.

I must admit I find Good Morning Britain to be far far worse than the BBC Breakfast personally. But I certainly agree that even BBC Breakfast can be awful at times (particularly after about 0830). Is it really so hard for someone to produce a breakfast time show that condenses into a half hour slot the headlines, some business news, some political or other analysis of a main story, the weather, local headlines, local travel and local weather?

This morning for example interviews with the Winter Olympic Athletes. I mean I'm very pleased/proud/etc about our performance at the Games just gone. But I don't really want to know about how they feel about it all first thing in the morning.

Then again maybe I'm just becoming a grumpy old man a few decades early

One thing irritates me above and beyond, and that's when sport on a pay-channel contains ads. The subscriptions for both BT and Sky are enormous, IMO they could easily drop the ads and trailers and let the sport flow. To me, ads = free TV, a sub = commercial free TV. So, yes, I'd pay slightly more for an ad-free sports service (as I would for commentry-free options!!).

Yes I agree with that. I don't necessarily object to the idea of adverts between programmes or, thinking of sport, during half-time/drinks/tea/lunch/etc but when you're paying subs I do think it's a quite a wheeze that they then have the gumption to show adverts in the middle of programmes as well.

(Another vote for a commentary free option here as well! Sometimes they're just annoying other times I just want the sport on in the background and commentary is distracting)

 

[Kite159]

Can't link to any actual figures, but for any channel aren't viewing figures down drastically from what they were years ago when three/four channels were available/ Ie a Saturday night show might top, what, 5m when 30 years ago it would have been twice that? Of course the same audience is spread around a multitude of channels, we can watch on catch-up etc; but I would have thought that the main reason was as alluded to above....it's just dross, padding, constant ads on commercial channels and more dross, fluff, filler and dross.

Apart from sport, I can't recall a time when I looked at a TV listings and said "oh, I must watch that" and I don't take a paper now or search out listings on the web, I've given up. I'll dip in to 24 hrs news and the Daily Politics show, but that's just about it.

One thing irritates me above and beyond, and that's when sport on a pay-channel contains ads. The subscriptions for both BT and Sky are enormous, IMO they could easily drop the ads and trailers and let the sport flow. To me, ads = free TV, a sub = commercial free TV. So, yes, I'd pay slightly more for an ad-free sports service (as I would for commentry-free options!!).

I agree, the days of the mega million viewing figures have mostly gone, viewers have a lot more choice these days. Add in the onset of faster internet speeds making on demand stuff more appealing.

I flick through the TV guide to see if any interesting documentaries are being shown on BBC4, but mostly the amount of live TV I watch has gone down to stuff like old episodes of Top Gear on Dave as background when having food.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

One thing irritates me above and beyond, and that's when sport on a pay-channel contains ads. The subscriptions for both BT and Sky are enormous, IMO they could easily drop the ads and trailers and let the sport flow. To me, ads = free TV, a sub = commercial free TV. So, yes, I'd pay slightly more for an ad-free sports service (as I would for commentry-free options!!).

Seriously? You think the subscriptions are expensive yet you can think of a reason for paying even more?

 

[northwichcat]

Can't help thinking that since it's move to "Manchester" that the BBC has gone right down the toilet.

That's strange reasoning. Why not blame the changes on the move to new studios in London, change in senior management, George Osborne forcing austerity on the BBC (the underlying reason for the new low cost Meteo Group weather forecasts instead of Met Office ones) or the after effect of the BBC's dark history recently being uncovered?

You do realise some programs have never been filmed in London e.g. University Challenge?

 

[JohnR]

I'm sure that someone said that "The BBC has gone downhill since it moved to White City. Why did they spend so much money on Television Centre? Alexandra Palace was good enough!"

 

[northwichcat]

I must admit I find Good Morning Britain to be far far worse than the BBC Breakfast personally. But I certainly agree that even BBC Breakfast can be awful at times (particularly after about 0830). Is it really so hard for someone to produce a breakfast time show that condenses into a half hour slot the headlines, some business news, some political or other analysis of a main story, the weather, local headlines, local travel and local weather?

BBC Breakfast started going downhill in 2000 when they turned it in to a magazine show with a newsreader (initially Moira Stuart) giving regular news bulletins. The presenters also changed from journalists like Nicholas Owen, Jeremy Bowen and Sophie Raworth to presenters with little journalism experience like Natasha Kaplinsky and Kate Silverton.

In the North West a few years back we went from having the local weather done by a local person who also worked on BBC Radio Manchester, to having it done by someone in the Nottingham studio who records one forecast for the North West the same forecast gets played every half hour. Some of the presenters are absolutely rubbish at doing weather forecasts for the North West - Sara Blizzard and Richard whatever his surname is, not that they're all bad Kaye Forester and Alex Hamilton are both good weather presenters, not that Kaye appears often these days.

 

[northwichcat]

Dan Walker. 'Nuff said.

Just be glad they didn't give the role to Tony Livesey.

 

[telstarbox]

I'm sure that someone said that "The BBC has gone downhill since it moved to White City. Why did they spend so much money on Television Centre? Alexandra Palace was good enough!"

Going anywhere from Ally Pally is going downhill

 

[goblinuser]

I think traditional tv is dying out, it's not what it once was and now has to compete against the infinite web content available to people.

 

[Howardh]

Seriously? You think the subscriptions are expensive yet you can think of a reason for paying even more?

A GOOD reason for paying more! Frankly the majority of commentators/pundits completely spoil an event I have paid two arms and three legs to watch, and if you turn down the sound then you lose the crowd noise. And in any case, just like the extra HD (sky) there's no reason for the extra charge to be compulsory!!

**If Sky still charge extra for HD they blummin' well shouldn't, 1080p should be standard for pay-tv, and 4k be the extra option. Sky's NOWtv have sport in 720 HD which is better than SD and there's no extra charge for that.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A GOOD reason for paying more! Frankly the majority of commentators/pundits completely spoil an event I have paid two arms and three legs to watch, and if you turn down the sound then you lose the crowd noise. And in any case, just like the extra HD (sky) there's no reason for the extra charge to be compulsory!!

**If Sky still charge extra for HD they blummin' well shouldn't, 1080p should be standard for pay-tv, and 4k be the extra option. Sky's NOWtv have sport in 720 HD which is better than SD and there's no extra charge for that.

You are right that commentators can make or break an event for the viewer but there are good ones even today. On BT the only football commentator that bugs me is Robbie Savage though he's more of what the Americans call a "color" man. And their own people on tennis are all good except Chris Bradnam who I gather is disliked by his colleagues too! Occasionally I resort to watching a stream on a gambling site and the complete lack of commentary actually takes the shine off completely: at least a bad commentator gives you reason to engage by hurling abuse!

Coming back on topic it's worth remembering that when BBC and ITV both covered the same event, generally England football, there were far more watching the BBC. Now some of that may be the lack of ad breaks but I think the commentators and pundits made a big difference too. Given the comments made upthread a more pertinent question might be could ITV save itself by moving to Salford? I too find that the only ITV I watch are occasional sports on ITV4 or movies (not made by ITV of course!) on ITV2.