Just A Minute
JAM Series | JAM Stats | JAM Today | JAM Group
This may seem a strange question - but is something I have mixed feelings about.
They supply a lot of shows that I really like. (JAM, ISIHAC, Dr Who)
They don't always look after those shows very well. (Where are the archives? Why do seemingly popular things get cancelled?)
They have been very liberal in the past about fan recordings and preservation. (Please donate any "lost shows")
Then they can get tough.
Individuals within the BBC can be very accommodating to fans.
Official policy can seem to contradict this.
Specialist and minority show can be made under government sponsorship.
There can be official interference even though things are very popular (Check what happened to the BBC Cult section on the website which seemed to be closed because it was too popular)
So once again I wonder - do you feel the BBC is our friend?
Love as always
Dave
I was hoping someone from Britain might respond to your interesting post. As no-one has done, I am writing a few lines, so that you at least know I read and thought about your post.
I work for the public non-commercial broadcaster here in New Zealand so some of what you say strikes chords with me.
Some random thoughts
* whatever the media, one of the things that is always difficult for us who work in them is that there is never a good time to change. People's media habits are habits and they are always used to what they are hearing/reading/viewing and are averse to change. Nevertheless there will come a time when any programme or schedule does need to change.
* although pleasing the public is a vitally important matter for a public broadcaster, it can't be the only goal. A public broadcaster has a responsibility to aspire to produce something better. That does involve having some freedom to experiment and that involves the risk of mistakes.
* we tend to talk about the BBC as if it was one monolithic organisation when it's actually the product of tens of thousands of people making (often) individual decisions.
* a couple of years ago the BBC Director-General talked about opening up all the archives. I haven't heard anything more about it but it seemed like the sort of goal a public broadcaster should aspite to. The US public service broadcaster C-Span has done it, and now has 30 years of political news programmes up for anyone to look at, for free, so it can be done.
This doesn't go anywhere near answering your great question - hopefully some of our British peeps will pitch in.
--- In just-a-minute@..., "David" <drling0@...> wrote:
>
> This may seem a strange question - but is something I have mixed feelings about.
>
> They supply a lot of shows that I really like. (JAM, ISIHAC, Dr Who)
> They don't always look after those shows very well. (Where are the archives? Why do seemingly popular things get cancelled?)
>
> They have been very liberal in the past about fan recordings and preservation. (Please donate any "lost shows")
> Then they can get tough.
>
> Individuals within the BBC can be very accommodating to fans.
> Official policy can seem to contradict this.
>
> Specialist and minority show can be made under government sponsorship.
> There can be official interference even though things are very popular (Check what happened to the BBC Cult section on the website which seemed to be closed because it was too popular)
>
> So once again I wonder - do you feel the BBC is our friend?
>
> Love as always
>
Firstly, there are a couple of things that some people (none here, I hope) seem to forget sometimes.
1. The BBC is a business.
2. Paying the license fee only gives one the right to watch tv programmes as they are broadcast. The money buys the individual the "ownership" of nothing.
Government interference leading to a freeze of the license fee was stupid and has led to the BBC's main competitor getting stronger. Personally, I think the fee is fantastic value for money, when I consider how much output from the BBC goes to entertaining me each day, without the adverts (most of which are moronic) oozing from my equipment courtesy of the commercial wallahs. That of course includes radio, which although can be heard live without a license, is funded directly and indirectly from the license fee pot.
Although I agree with the criticism of the BBC for wiping so many tapes, it would have taken a wiser man than me to have made a different decision regarding those now lost "gems". At the time, it must have seemed the correct thing to do, after all they had every right to think that only a handful of people would have been interested in watching/hearing the lost "gems" after so many years had passed. They were wrong, but we only know that with hindsight. Additionally, the BBC were not alone in wiping or ditching tapes, other broadcasters like ITV did the same.
As Dean points out, peoples' tastes change. I no longer laugh at all the things I used to. What's popular with me and my associates need not be the same for the majority of people. Most of the younger generation I know do not listen to speech radio of any kind. That's a lot of lugholes, which could if they were attached to wiser brains, be boosting the BBC's listening figures.
It's hard to imagine programmes like JAM and Clue carrying on for another 40 years, which is a shame as the format of both programmes is such that they could continue indefinitely, with topical tweaks and not sound old or tired. The sad truth is that the vast majority of listeners to these programme are baby boomers, with most of them in the autumn of their lives. Hence, when enough of those have gone to the big theatre in the sky, alternative programmes will replace these and other favourites.
Is the BBC our friend? Yes, over the past 50 odd years, it has been more of a friend to me than any other company I can think of.
A more appropriate question may be - is BSkyB our friend?
To: just-a-minute@...
From: dbedford@...
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:45:01 +0000
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
Dave
I was hoping someone from Britain might respond to your interesting post. As no-one has done, I am writing a few lines, so that you at least know I read and thought about your post.
I work for the public non-commercial broadcaster here in New Zealand so some of what you say strikes chords with me.
Some random thoughts
* whatever the media, one of the things that is always difficult for us who work in them is that there is never a good time to change. People's media habits are habits and they are always used to what they are hearing/reading/viewing and are averse to change. Nevertheless there will come a time when any programme or schedule does need to change.
* although pleasing the public is a vitally important matter for a public broadcaster, it can't be the only goal. A public broadcaster has a responsibility to aspire to produce something better. That does involve having some freedom to experiment and that involves the risk of mistakes.
* we tend to talk about the BBC as if it was one monolithic organisation when it's actually the product of tens of thousands of people making (often) individual decisions.
* a couple of years ago the BBC Director-General talked about opening up all the archives. I haven't heard anything more about it but it seemed like the sort of goal a public broadcaster should aspite to. The US public service broadcaster C-Span has done it, and now has 30 years of political news programmes up for anyone to look at, for free, so it can be done.
This doesn't go anywhere near answering your great question - hopefully some of our British peeps will pitch in.
1. The BBC is a business.
2. Paying the license fee only gives one the right to watch tv programmes as they are broadcast. The money buys the individual the "ownership" of nothing.
Government interference leading to a freeze of the license fee was stupid and has led to the BBC's main competitor getting stronger. Personally, I think the fee is fantastic value for money, when I consider how much output from the BBC goes to entertaining me each day, without the adverts (most of which are moronic) oozing from my equipment courtesy of the commercial wallahs. That of course includes radio, which although can be heard live without a license, is funded directly and indirectly from the license fee pot.
Although I agree with the criticism of the BBC for wiping so many tapes, it would have taken a wiser man than me to have made a different decision regarding those now lost "gems". At the time, it must have seemed the correct thing to do, after all they had every right to think that only a handful of people would have been interested in watching/hearing the lost "gems" after so many years had passed. They were wrong, but we only know that with hindsight. Additionally, the BBC were not alone in wiping or ditching tapes, other broadcasters like ITV did the same.
As Dean points out, peoples' tastes change. I no longer laugh at all the things I used to. What's popular with me and my associates need not be the same for the majority of people. Most of the younger generation I know do not listen to speech radio of any kind. That's a lot of lugholes, which could if they were attached to wiser brains, be boosting the BBC's listening figures.
It's hard to imagine programmes like JAM and Clue carrying on for another 40 years, which is a shame as the format of both programmes is such that they could continue indefinitely, with topical tweaks and not sound old or tired. The sad truth is that the vast majority of listeners to these programme are baby boomers, with most of them in the autumn of their lives. Hence, when enough of those have gone to the big theatre in the sky, alternative programmes will replace these and other favourites.
Is the BBC our friend? Yes, over the past 50 odd years, it has been more of a friend to me than any other company I can think of.
A more appropriate question may be - is BSkyB our friend?
To: just-a-minute@...
From: dbedford@...
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:45:01 +0000
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
Dave
I was hoping someone from Britain might respond to your interesting post. As no-one has done, I am writing a few lines, so that you at least know I read and thought about your post.
I work for the public non-commercial broadcaster here in New Zealand so some of what you say strikes chords with me.
Some random thoughts
* whatever the media, one of the things that is always difficult for us who work in them is that there is never a good time to change. People's media habits are habits and they are always used to what they are hearing/reading/viewing and are averse to change. Nevertheless there will come a time when any programme or schedule does need to change.
* although pleasing the public is a vitally important matter for a public broadcaster, it can't be the only goal. A public broadcaster has a responsibility to aspire to produce something better. That does involve having some freedom to experiment and that involves the risk of mistakes.
* we tend to talk about the BBC as if it was one monolithic organisation when it's actually the product of tens of thousands of people making (often) individual decisions.
* a couple of years ago the BBC Director-General talked about opening up all the archives. I haven't heard anything more about it but it seemed like the sort of goal a public broadcaster should aspite to. The US public service broadcaster C-Span has done it, and now has 30 years of political news programmes up for anyone to look at, for free, so it can be done.
This doesn't go anywhere near answering your great question - hopefully some of our British peeps will pitch in.
--- In just-a-minute@..., "David" <drling0@...> wrote:
>
> This may seem a strange question - but is something I have mixed feelings about.
>
> They supply a lot of shows that I really like. (JAM, ISIHAC, Dr Who)
> They don't always look after those shows very well. (Where are the archives? Why do seemingly popular things get cancelled?)
>
> They have been very liberal in the past about fan recordings and preservation. (Please donate any "lost shows")
> Then they can get tough.
>
> Individuals within the BBC can be very accommodating to fans.
> Official policy can seem to contradict this.
>
> Specialist and minority show can be made under government sponsorship.
> There can be official interference even though things are very popular (Check what happened to the BBC Cult section on the website which seemed to be closed because it was too popular)
>
> So once again I wonder - do you feel the BBC is our friend?
>
> Love as always
>
It's interesting that 'Desert Island Disks' is celebrating its 70th birthday this year... and still going strong.
It's hard to imagine programmes like JAM and Clue carrying on for another 40 years,
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
Thanks for the replies. Just to add my perspective:
1 - I love the BBC. As I live in South Korea I mainly access the BBC through the website - which in my view is second to none. Sunday morning I check the football results, it has fantastic resources for my students, of course I listen to radio shows etc etc.
2 - Yes the BBC is a business........but I suspect it is a special kind of business. Not all of its shows are made because they are big money earners. There are sometimes educational issues, symbolic things. What I means is that there are more concerns than say CNN or Fox News. Sometimes (and for me this is strange) things are not done because we are told that this should be done by a commercial enterprise. Stopping something because it is too popular is still very strange to me.
3 - My feeling is the BBC is BIG and so therefore there will be contradictions between different decisions and different departments.
4 - The BBC changes through time. I too am still waiting for the release of the BBC digital archive. Things like the Desert Island Disc Archive is fantastic - I just hope that there are more things like that to come.
5 - I hate controversy but here goes. It could be argued that as a state broadcaster the BBC is owned by the British people. It is not like paying a subscription service to a commercial venture. This is a possible area where people can argue about recording and distributing shows. Personally I grew up recording pop songs from my little portable radio and then I started doing the same with comedy shows. To be fair I feel that the BBC has been very tolerant of people like us sharing shows. However, something deep inside me tells me that this may change
6 - Finally I feel that maybe the BBC is like the university where I work. At my university there are the professors and the administrators. The professors have great ideas and then the administrators tell you why there is not the money to do it. You have to work within the constraints imposed upon you. This can make you more creative and it can also make you very frustrated. However, if you do something newsworthy on your own they love the reflected glory. Maybe this is a common structure of many large organizations.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. I hope that the BBC continues in its current format even though I know that change is inevitable.
Love as always, David
--- In just-a-minute@..., Steve Kenrick <steve.kenrick@...> wrote:
>
> Firstly, there are a couple of things that some people (none here, I hope) seem to forget sometimes.
>
> 1. The BBC is a business.
>
> 2. Paying the license fee only gives one the right to watch tv programmes as they are broadcast. The money buys the individual the "ownership" of nothing.
>
> Government interference leading to a freeze of the license fee was stupid and has led to the BBC's main competitor getting stronger. Personally, I think the fee is fantastic value for money, when I consider how much output from the BBC goes to entertaining me each day, without the adverts (most of which are moronic) oozing from my equipment courtesy of the commercial wallahs. That of course includes radio, which although can be heard live without a license, is funded directly and indirectly from the license fee pot.
>
> Although I agree with the criticism of the BBC for wiping so many tapes, it would have taken a wiser man than me to have made a different decision regarding those now lost "gems". At the time, it must have seemed the correct thing to do, after all they had every right to think that only a handful of people would have been interested in watching/hearing the lost "gems" after so many years had passed. They were wrong, but we only know that with hindsight. Additionally, the BBC were not alone in wiping or ditching tapes, other broadcasters like ITV did the same.
>
> As Dean points out, peoples' tastes change. I no longer laugh at all the things I used to. What's popular with me and my associates need not be the same for the majority of people. Most of the younger generation I know do not listen to speech radio of any kind. That's a lot of lugholes, which could if they were attached to wiser brains, be boosting the BBC's listening figures.
>
> It's hard to imagine programmes like JAM and Clue carrying on for another 40 years, which is a shame as the format of both programmes is such that they could continue indefinitely, with topical tweaks and not sound old or tired. The sad truth is that the vast majority of listeners to these programme are baby boomers, with most of them in the autumn of their lives. Hence, when enough of those have gone to the big theatre in the sky, alternative programmes will replace these and other favourites.
>
> Is the BBC our friend? Yes, over the past 50 odd years, it has been more of a friend to me than any other company I can think of.
>
> A more appropriate question may be - is BSkyB our friend?
>
>
>
>
> To: just-a-minute@...
> From: dbedford@...
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:45:01 +0000
> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> I was hoping someone from Britain might respond to your interesting post. As no-one has done, I am writing a few lines, so that you at least know I read and thought about your post.
>
>
>
> I work for the public non-commercial broadcaster here in New Zealand so some of what you say strikes chords with me.
>
>
>
> Some random thoughts
>
>
>
> * whatever the media, one of the things that is always difficult for us who work in them is that there is never a good time to change. People's media habits are habits and they are always used to what they are hearing/reading/viewing and are averse to change. Nevertheless there will come a time when any programme or schedule does need to change.
>
>
>
> * although pleasing the public is a vitally important matter for a public broadcaster, it can't be the only goal. A public broadcaster has a responsibility to aspire to produce something better. That does involve having some freedom to experiment and that involves the risk of mistakes.
>
>
>
> * we tend to talk about the BBC as if it was one monolithic organisation when it's actually the product of tens of thousands of people making (often) individual decisions.
>
>
>
> * a couple of years ago the BBC Director-General talked about opening up all the archives. I haven't heard anything more about it but it seemed like the sort of goal a public broadcaster should aspite to. The US public service broadcaster C-Span has done it, and now has 30 years of political news programmes up for anyone to look at, for free, so it can be done.
>
>
>
> This doesn't go anywhere near answering your great question - hopefully some of our British peeps will pitch in.
>
>
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "David" <drling0@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > This may seem a strange question - but is something I have mixed feelings about.
>
> >
>
> > They supply a lot of shows that I really like. (JAM, ISIHAC, Dr Who)
>
> > They don't always look after those shows very well. (Where are the archives? Why do seemingly popular things get cancelled?)
>
> >
>
> > They have been very liberal in the past about fan recordings and preservation. (Please donate any "lost shows")
>
> > Then they can get tough.
>
> >
>
> > Individuals within the BBC can be very accommodating to fans.
>
> > Official policy can seem to contradict this.
>
> >
>
> > Specialist and minority show can be made under government sponsorship.
>
> > There can be official interference even though things are very popular (Check what happened to the BBC Cult section on the website which seemed to be closed because it was too popular)
>
> >
>
> > So once again I wonder - do you feel the BBC is our friend?
>
> >
>
> > Love as always
>
> >
>
hi David
(apologies for calling you Dave rather than David)
just on this aspect which I've copied below
I actually feel the trend is in the opposite direction. At some point you can't defy reality. So much is now available on the Internet that at some point soon, people will just accept it and perhaps even encourage it.
It is amazing to me how much is accessible these days. For example, Julian Clary is currently appearing in Celebrity Big Brother in the UK - and all the shows are up on YouTube within an hour or so of being broadcast, and as a result I am really enjoying the show and following it each day.
I think it will be hard for the cap to be put back on this bottle.
--- In just-a-minute@..., "David" <drling0@...> wrote:
To be fair I feel that the BBC has been very tolerant of people like us sharing shows. However, something deep inside me tells me that this may change
Dear Dean, Dave or David does not matter. I tell my students that they can call me "My Lord" but so few seem to do that.
Love as always, "Big D"
--- In just-a-minute@..., "deanbedford" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> hi David
>
> (apologies for calling you Dave rather than David)
>
> just on this aspect which I've copied below
>
> I actually feel the trend is in the opposite direction. At some point you can't defy reality. So much is now available on the Internet that at some point soon, people will just accept it and perhaps even encourage it.
>
> It is amazing to me how much is accessible these days. For example, Julian Clary is currently appearing in Celebrity Big Brother in the UK - and all the shows are up on YouTube within an hour or so of being broadcast, and as a result I am really enjoying the show and following it each day.
>
> I think it will be hard for the cap to be put back on this bottle.
>
>
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "David" <drling0@> wrote:
> To be fair I feel that the BBC has been very tolerant of people like us sharing shows. However, something deep inside me tells me that this may change
>
When Nick dies, so will Just a Minute. Just my opinion.
Didn't work for Clue though, 'cos when Jack Dee took over it took on a new lease of life, but then again Clue is a different show to Just a Minute. Then again, I also don't think Clue would work without two of the three that are Graeme, Tim or Barry. Not even the tuneless wonder Jeremy Hardy could fill their gap (even Jeremy would agree with that) Again, just my opinion.
Ant
From: nylon net <nylon@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 0:00
Subject: RE: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
It's interesting that 'Desert Island Disks' is celebrating its 70th birthday this year... and still going strong.
It's hard to imagine programmes like JAM and Clue carrying on for another 40 years,![3D Earth Screensaver Preview]()
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
Hi All
Interesting the view on habits really. We are creatures of habit and change is difficult no matter what it involves. Change needs to be gradual and thats why the odd new presenter would be good for the show and allow people to hear things in a different light. As we dont have a theme to follow on JAM, people can dip in and out without missing anything, unlike TV soaps.
As for the BBC, in my view they actually do too much and try to cater for everyone and this does stretch resources, so cuts have to me made. Although in recent years the beeb has been buying in productions rather than a commission and budget spend. We dont seem to be getting the quality shows that we expected from the BBC and they dont nurture writers or producers that the industry needs. I am thinking here on the comedy side as an example. We used to spend time getting to know the characters in the shows and follow them (only fools and horses), but everything seems rushed. I was listening to an old JAM today and the way Clement or Kenneth used to drag out the speech would turn a lot of younger ones off today.
Just my views, so dont jump at me lol
From: Anthony Hobson <antster1983@...>
To: "just-a-minute@..." <just-a-minute@...>
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 1:41
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
When Nick dies, so will Just a Minute. Just my opinion.
Didn't work for Clue though, 'cos when Jack Dee took over it took on a new lease of life, but then again Clue is a different show to Just a Minute. Then again, I also don't think Clue would work without two of the three that are Graeme, Tim or Barry. Not even the tuneless wonder Jeremy Hardy could fill their gap (even Jeremy would agree with that) Again,
just my opinion.
Ant
From: nylon net <nylon@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 0:00
Subject: RE: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
It's interesting that 'Desert Island Disks' is celebrating its 70th birthday this year... and still going strong.
It's hard to imagine programmes like JAM and Clue carrying on for another 40 years,![3D Earth Screensaver Preview]()
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
"Big D" is local slang for the city of Dallas,
--
James R Curry
On Aug 30, 2012, at 6:46 PM, David <drling0@...> wrote:
> Dear Dean, Dave or David does not matter. I tell my students that they can call me "My Lord" but so few seem to do that.
>
> Love as always, "Big D"
>
>
>
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "deanbedford" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>>
>> hi David
>>
>> (apologies for calling you Dave rather than David)
>>
>> just on this aspect which I've copied below
>>
>> I actually feel the trend is in the opposite direction. At some point you can't defy reality. So much is now available on the Internet that at some point soon, people will just accept it and perhaps even encourage it.
>>
>> It is amazing to me how much is accessible these days. For example, Julian Clary is currently appearing in Celebrity Big Brother in the UK - and all the shows are up on YouTube within an hour or so of being broadcast, and as a result I am really enjoying the show and following it each day.
>>
>> I think it will be hard for the cap to be put back on this bottle.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In just-a-minute@..., "David" <drling0@> wrote:
>> To be fair I feel that the BBC has been very tolerant of people like us sharing shows. However, something deep inside me tells me that this may change
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>This has started to happen but it seems to be a very slow process. Last year a few hundred episodes of Desert Island Discs appeared online. Today there are 1571 episodes that you can "download to keep":
> * a couple of years ago the BBC Director-General talked about opening up all the archives. I haven't heard anything more about it but it seemed like the sort of goal a public broadcaster should aspire to. The US public service broadcaster C-Span has done it, and now has 30 years of political news programmes up for anyone to look at, for free, so it can be done.
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs
I'm sure everyone on this list would love this to be extended to JAM and other classic archive programming, but it's probably going to clash with the aim of BBC Worldwide, whose mission is to "maximise profits on behalf of the BBC".
There is a lot of talk about selling TV and radio shows through BBC iPlayer which would definitely be the next logical step. Let's hope it comes to fruition while the baby boomers are still around to enjoy the shows they grew up with...
Simon
Hi Simon
I remember this, but I read that recent technology changes are allowing them to setup an on demand service via i-player and other devices "Lord Alan Sugar" has a device in mind. I think it will be along the lines of pay per view. Of course the time to move 30 years of tapes to digital will take some time and resources. With the amount of radio and TV hours stored I dont think it will happen too soon tho.
From: Simon B Kelly <simonbkelly@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 12:09
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
This has started to happen but it seems to be a very slow process. Last year a few hundred episodes of Desert Island Discs appeared online. Today there are 1571 episodes that you can "download to keep":>
> * a couple of years ago the BBC Director-General talked about opening up all the archives. I haven't heard anything more about it but it seemed like the sort of goal a public broadcaster should aspire to. The US public service broadcaster C-Span has done it, and now has 30 years of political news programmes up for anyone to look at, for free, so it can be done.
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs
I'm sure everyone on this list would love this to be extended to JAM and other classic archive programming, but it's probably going to clash with the aim of BBC Worldwide, whose mission is to "maximise profits on behalf of the BBC".
There is a lot of talk about selling TV and radio shows through BBC iPlayer which would definitely be the next logical step. Let's hope it comes to fruition while the baby boomers are still around to enjoy the shows they grew up with...
Simon
As a
British person I listen to previously broadcast programmes on the BBC I Player
for 'free'. Although not really free as we have to pay a licence fee in the UK
for public broacasting. It is my suspicion (we have a Conservative
government that gives tax cuts to the very wealthy whilst squeezing the pips of
the poor) that we will soon have to pay to access BBC programmes on the I
Player. If one has enough money, of course one can go out and buy BBC
recordings or download them from a pay site. I do not have the money to do so. I
recently watch the US TV series NCIS LA and Homicide (Life on the Street) on
pirate TV and will continue to do so until such sites are closed down. These
programmes are only available on pay TV in the UK. Rupert Murdoch and his like
get 'double bubble' i,e, advertising revenue and satellite subscription fees as
well (not to mention all the extras they charge for). A bit like bankers who
invest your money for their profit, then charge you for the privilege. The more
radio and TV programmes that can be put out for free then so much the
better. Unfortunately in the earlier days of
broadcasting many programmes were destroyed as their value was not understood at
the time. There are missing episodes of e.g . Hancock's Half Hour, Steptoe and
Son, Doctor Who and Dad's Army amongst others. Allowing fans access
amongst each other to listen to Just a Minute is no different to the days when
we used to lend a cassette tape to a friend IMHO. Those who want a Rolls Royce
service and have the money will normally pay for it.
Robert
-----Original
Message-----
From: just-a-minute@... [mailto:just-a-minute@...]On Behalf Of deanbedford
Sent: 30 August 2012 20:45
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
From: just-a-minute@... [mailto:just-a-minute@...]On Behalf Of deanbedford
Sent: 30 August 2012 20:45
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
Dave
I was hoping someone from Britain might respond to your interesting post. As no-one has done, I am writing a few lines, so that you at least know I read and thought about your post.
I work for the public non-commercial broadcaster here in New Zealand so some of what you say strikes chords with me.
Some random thoughts
* whatever the media, one of the things that is always difficult for us who work in them is that there is never a good time to change. People's media habits are habits and they are always used to what they are hearing/reading/viewing and are averse to change. Nevertheless there will come a time when any programme or schedule does need to change.
* although pleasing the public is a vitally important matter for a public broadcaster, it can't be the only goal. A public broadcaster has a responsibility to aspire to produce something better. That does involve having some freedom to experiment and that involves the risk of mistakes.
* we tend to talk about the BBC as if it was one monolithic organisation when it's actually the product of tens of thousands of people making (often) individual decisions.
* a couple of years ago the BBC Director-General talked about opening up all the archives. I haven't heard anything more about it but it seemed like the sort of goal a public broadcaster should aspite to. The US public service broadcaster C-Span has done it, and now has 30 years of political news programmes up for anyone to look at, for free, so it can be done.
This doesn't go anywhere near answering your great question - hopefully some of our British peeps will pitch in.
--- In just-a-minute@..., "David" <drling0@...> wrote:
>
> This may seem a strange question - but is something I have mixed feelings about.
>
> They supply a lot of shows that I really like. (JAM, ISIHAC, Dr Who)
> They don't always look after those shows very well. (Where are the archives? Why do seemingly popular things get cancelled?)
>
> They have been very liberal in the past about fan recordings and preservation. (Please donate any "lost shows")
> Then they can get tough.
>
> Individuals within the BBC can be very accommodating to fans.
> Official policy can seem to contradict this.
>
> Specialist and minority show can be made under government sponsorship.
> There can be official interference even though things are very popular (Check what happened to the BBC Cult section on the website which seemed to be closed because it was too popular)
>
> So once again I wonder - do you feel the BBC is our friend?
>
> Love as always
>
I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
SPAMfighter has removed 126 of my spam emails to date.
Do you have a slow PC? Try free scan!
I don't see why the BBC needs to be our friend.
It is a "state monopoly" but I think one that has been a beneficial one for the last few years.
The question about Rupert Murdoch.
That's a savvy one.
The problem (and Sky recently admitted to this) is that technology and people have moved faster than the TV companies have (or would like to). They're not ready nor have a plan for a way to advertise on demand content, but in truth the advertising world has changed with PVRs and the like.
I was ready to start my own company to have a good go against them, but when I found out Sony had already got quite far with a similar idea (Ultraviolet) I stopped.
I hope that there is a bit of common sense (so rare in the world these days) and can see that this is not a threat to them, nor to any future financial model they may want.
I would actually be more than happy to pay for a copy of Just a Minute each week that I can "own" and have under my full control (like a CD). Until then ...
Ahhh. So it's not a synonym for "Large Richard" ?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: scratchy@...
Sent: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:09:40 -0500
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?"Big D" is local slang for the city of Dallas,
--
James R Curry
On Aug 30, 2012, at 6:46 PM, David <drling0@...> wrote:
> Dear Dean, Dave or David does not matter. I tell my students that they can call me "My Lord" but so few seem to do that.
>
> Love as always, "Big D"
>
>
>
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "deanbedford" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>>
>> hi David
>>
>> (apologies for calling you Dave rather than David)
>>
>> just on this aspect which I've copied below
>>
>> I actually feel the trend is in the opposite direction. At some point you can't defy reality. So much is now available on the Internet that at some point soon, people will just accept it and perhaps even encourage it.
>>
>> It is amazing to me how much is accessible these days. For example, Julian Clary is currently appearing in Celebrity Big Brother in the UK - and all the shows are up on YouTube within an hour or so of being broadcast, and as a result I am really enjoying the show and following it each day.
>>
>> I think it will be hard for the cap to be put back on this bottle.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In just-a-minute@..., "David" <drling0@> wrote:
>> To be fair I feel that the BBC has been very tolerant of people like us sharing shows. However, something deep inside me tells me that this may change
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>Send any screenshot to your friends in seconds...
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.
Try IM ToolPack at www.imtoolpack.com for FREE
I hope they do a better job of it than ABC did with our favourite radio program recently. However, I'm sure they will...
--
Cheers
Don __o
\ <,
.....O/ O
sent from my iPod Touch
On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:18, Wayne Styles <wayne.styles@...> wrote:
Hi SimonI remember this, but I read that recent technology changes are allowing them to setup an on demand service via i-player and other devices "Lord Alan Sugar" has a device in mind. I think it will be along the lines of pay per view. Of course the time to move 30 years of tapes to digital will take some time and resources. With the amount of radio and TV hours stored I dont think it will happen too soon tho.
From: Simon B Kelly <simonbkelly@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 12:09
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
>
> * a couple of years ago the BBC Director-General talked about opening up all the archives. I haven't heard anything more about it but it seemed like the sort of goal a public broadcaster should aspire to. The US public service broadcaster C-Span has done it, and now has 30 years of political news programmes up for anyone to look at, for free, so it can be done.
>
This has started to happen but it seems to be a very slow process. Last year a few hundred episodes of Desert Island Discs appeared online. Today there are 1571 episodes that you can "download to keep":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs
I'm sure everyone on this list would love this to be extended to JAM and other classic archive programming, but it's probably going to clash with the aim of BBC Worldwide, whose mission is to "maximise profits on behalf of the BBC".
There is a lot of talk about selling TV and radio shows through BBC iPlayer which would definitely be the next logical step. Let's hope it comes to fruition while the baby boomers are still around to enjoy the shows they grew up with...
Simon
[ email thread trimmed to ease Dean's life :o) ]
my 2p
worth...
1 - I love the BBC too.
Comparing the BBC coverage of the Olympics to the Channel 4 coverage of the Paralympics, for example, makes you realise the Beeb is
light-years ahead of anyone else. I agree the BBC websites are awesome from a
user's PoV. I work in the IT industry so have an idea how such things work. They use some very technical 'stuff' to make it work as it does so the way it works is also awesome.
2 - The BBC is a unique business IMHO. Something the BBC does which no-one else does (as far as I know) is to give an opportunity to rising talent - where else do you get to hear up and coming writers and performers in all genres i.e. comedy, drama etc. An acquaintance of mine was selected to go for the new comedy awards some time ago - he would never have had an opportunity without the Beeb.
3 - The BBC is HUGE, according to Google "Revenue = £4.741 bn" eeek!
4 - A few years ago you could browse the
content of the BBC archive, not the media, just a listing of every programme in the archive with
some information. That has since disappeared without any warning or notice. That in itself was a valuable reference for us radio prog collectors/fans. One programme currently available in it's entirety on iPlayer is Chain Reaction; that really surprises me to be honest, not what I'd call Classic comedy but interesting enough I guess. In a way (interviewing celebrities) it's similar to DID I guess.
5 - One reason BBC's tolerance to programme-swapping may come to an end as it is rumoured she is going to charge for access to archive programmes after they expire from iPlayer, such rumours have been around for some time.
6 - It's the same the whole world over as you suggest....
--
Cheers
Don __o
\<,
.....O/ O
Cheers
Don __o
\<,
.....O/ O
From: David <drling0@...>
To: just-a-minute@...
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 0:16
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Is the BBC our friend?
Thanks for the replies. Just to add my perspective:
1 - I love the BBC. As I live in South Korea I mainly access the BBC through the website - which in my view is second to none. Sunday morning I check the football results, it has fantastic resources for my students, of course I listen to radio shows etc etc.
2 - Yes the BBC is a business........but I suspect it is a special kind of business. Not all of its shows are made because they are big money earners. There are sometimes educational issues, symbolic things. What I means is that there are more concerns than say CNN or Fox News. Sometimes (and for me this is strange) things are not done because we are told that this should be done by a commercial enterprise. Stopping something because it is too popular is still very strange to me.
3 - My feeling is the BBC is BIG and so therefore there will be contradictions between different decisions and different departments.
4 - The BBC changes through time. I too am still waiting for the release of the BBC digital archive. Things like the Desert Island Disc Archive is fantastic - I just hope that there are more things like that to come.
5 - I hate controversy but here goes. It could be argued that as a state broadcaster the BBC is owned by the British people. It is not like paying a subscription service to a commercial venture. This is a possible area where people can argue about recording and distributing shows. Personally I grew up recording pop songs from my little portable radio and then I started doing the same with comedy shows. To be fair I feel that the BBC has been very tolerant of people like us sharing shows. However, something deep inside me tells me that this may change
6 - Finally I feel that maybe the BBC is like the university where I work. At my university there are the professors and the administrators. The professors have great ideas and then the administrators tell you why there is not the money to do it. You have to work within the constraints imposed upon you. This can make you more creative and it can also make you very frustrated. However, if you do something newsworthy on your own they love the reflected glory. Maybe this is a common structure of many large organizations.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. I hope that the BBC continues in its current format even though I know that change is inevitable.
Love as always, David
Message History
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 10 | 23 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 19 | 12 | 31 | 4 | 14 |
| 2018 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 8 | 9 | 37 | 9 | 5 | 19 | 25 | 5 | 14 |
| 2017 | 4 | 34 | 22 | 12 | 17 | 20 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 44 | 23 | 16 |
| 2016 | 13 | 49 | 39 | 57 | 60 | 87 | 10 | 32 | 24 | 12 | 9 | 23 |
| 2015 | 51 | 97 | 32 | 49 | 41 | 54 | 20 | 28 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 16 |
| 2014 | 9 | 75 | 68 | 33 | 28 | 33 | 52 | 82 | 51 | 32 | 38 | 79 |
| 2013 | 463 | 251 | 98 | 87 | 81 | 192 | 88 | 98 | 86 | 38 | 54 | 27 |
| 2012 | 92 | 121 | 180 | 199 | 125 | 88 | 71 | 155 | 118 | 166 | 125 | 144 |
| 2011 | 112 | 78 | 71 | 73 | 134 | 225 | 252 | 152 | 62 | 183 | 165 | 63 |
| 2010 | 142 | 117 | 153 | 94 | 69 | 49 | 69 | 183 | 82 | 71 | 68 | 75 |
| 2009 | 67 | 45 | 42 | 97 | 90 | 149 | 110 | 70 | 63 | 42 | 35 | 39 |
| 2008 | 200 | 120 | 175 | 120 | 70 | 109 | 87 | 115 | 71 | 45 | 58 | 38 |
| 2007 | 165 | 447 | 132 | 99 | 95 | 57 | 140 | 118 | 74 | 88 | 125 | 99 |
| FAQ | Contact | Services | Terms | Privacy | Credits |
[Page generated in 0.0832 seconds under 1.7% server load]
© 2012-2025 TVRDb.com. All rights reserved.