Those daring young men at the BBC are planning some lovely Poverty Porn for us.
They will find “Britain’s Hardest Grafter” in a Hunger Games style show that pits low paid workers against each other, specifically targeting young graduates who haven’t found a job yet.
On BBC2 no less.
I want my licence fee back. This is not how things should be.
I was hoping this would turn out to be some Daily Mash-style spoof…I would have thought that right now, with half the nation baying for scrapping the licence fee and culling all the lefties, it might have been smart to keep their heads down and steer clear of own goals. (Our mixed metaphor correspondent writes…)
I’m thinking W1A here; “lovely Lucy” has suggested this as a pisstake to David who takes it seriously, sells it too Anna (who sits on the fence). Siobhan is so with it, Ian Fletcher has to deal with the fall-out and to David Harwood it’s all brilliant brilliant.
I’ve always been rabidly pro-BBC, but it’s increasingly hard to see a world in which it makes as much sense as it did.
As it stands, you can see how this kind of lowest-common-denominator stuff is a necessary evil, in that if it doesn’t chase ratings it gets accused of elitism, but it can’t win: if it DOES do this stuff, it gets panned (probably rightly) for dumbing down and pandering. But in a world that has Netflix, it seems a bit nuts – give it five years and who the hell is going to want to wait a week for the next installment of that year’s Wolf Hall? Scheduled TV broadcasting seems like it belongs to another age.
My only worry about the BBC’s probably inevitable gutting is what happens to the “elitist” stuff? We live in a world in which the arts and science and history is only acceptable entertainment if it’s as accessible as possible, ideally with a shiny-toothed sexpot exclaiming breathily all over it, and lots of intercut footage of time-lapse clouds racing overhead. (I’m not really knocking it: I think Brian Cox is ace.) But the sort of stuff that is BBC4’s stock-in trade has about nine viewers, and I can’t see how it could exist in a commercial world. And as for Radio 4 – the thought of PM and ISIHAC going the way of the dodo makes me shudder.
Saying that, I bet if I made a list of invaluable public-service BBC content I couldn’t live without, then went through iPlayer making a list of stuff that really belongs on ITV (or makes me want to chuck the TV in a car crusher), the first list would be a lot shorter.
Oh, and if they want to make a few gajillion quids’ worth of savings that would bother nobody but John Simpson, scrap the News Channel. Like, YESTERDAY.
Jesus, all my posts are coming out terribly tl;dr lately. Sorry.
Wolf Hall? You can wait a year within one episode.
When the BBC goes, which broadcaster is going to make fantastic live tv like Springwatch? OK, so the power trio of Packham, Strachan and Hughes-Games are no match for the charm and whimsy of the much missed Oddie and Humble duo. But even so, this is great tv.
I’ll have to take your word for that, Martin!
I’ll add to this something I dozed off through last night (definitely not the programme’s fault) and wish I hadn’t: “The Secret Life of Canals” on BBC4. I can’t imagine many other broadcasters putting together an hour long documentary about the folk who rescued Britain’s canals from rack and ruin.
I’d like to see it before passing judgement, really. The Hunger Games and poverty porn references come from the Indy article, as does the image of a chap who I’m guessing isn”t a graduate, and the reference to low paid workers being pitted against each other. The show might be an attempt to demonstrate that young graduates are very capable, enthusiastic and innovative – or it might be a bit of work-makes-you-free propaganda, a message the new govt wouldn’t mind the bbc spreading around at all.
I’m broadly with Bob on this. I am a big fan of the Beeb, mainly because i prefer their slightly less brash production style, and not having to sit through inane adverts all the time. I pretty much exclusively watch 2 and 4 and wouldn’t dream or wasting a second on the tripe mentioned in the OP. But I do think they waste a lot of money, unencombered by the inconvenience of working within some sort of budget constraint linked to consumption. One hears of hundreds of people going off to the World Cup or Olympics, for example, where ITV have a few dozen. If Netflix reran the OGWT and did a few decent history documentaries I fear I’d never look at the Beeb other than for current affairs.
2, 4 and the red button is all we ever use (or want), but I’ll happily take an axe to any Govt that wants to damage the Beeb, even the mainstream parts of it; it’s one thing that makes Britain still Great.
Is it though?
It feels increasingly as one of those things that we feel obliged to say rather than actually believe. As with the National Health Service. And our Police
Having just suffered 3 weeks of US TV, I’d say it undoubtedly is. And as part of my job is to fathom why my company spends $80m a year on health insurance for 6000 employees the NHS gets my vote to.
The boys in blue are a different matter…
There’s an enormous amount of mission creep in the Beeb, though. I do think the licence fee is a bargain, and I don’t have an answer to how it might be more fairly funded, but at the same time, the list of stuff the BBC doesn’t really have any business doing is a pretty long one.
This week’s imaginative ‘new programme’ is The Box. Which involves members of the public, cooking mystery ingredients brought in a box. (Imaginative title). Presented by James Martin…
This is not at all dissimilar to the last part of Ready Steady Cook, where we had a ‘mystery bag’ (later box) where members of the public cook mystery ingredients from the box, (Major difference, no ‘celebrity chef’ helpers). Who is it presented by…? James Martin who came through RSC.
At least you can tell this is a ‘reworking’ whereas if you watch the property/home programmes it’s only the absence of the ‘icon’ in the corner (& adverts) that say it’s a repeat (‘My god, this must be a new Homes Under The Hammer as it has 3 presenters)…
I’m not knocking the BBC, I love it – I just don’t think it’s too ‘forward looking’ or enjoys ‘risk taking’ in all it’s departments. OOAA obviously….
James Martin came through the RSC? Did he ever play the Dane?
Actually, I have absolutely no idea if that gag works. Without Googling him I don’t really have a Scoobie who James Martin is. My loss, I’m sure.
I love a bit of Public Service Broadcasting.
youtube.com/watch?v=1-kkivsjbE0
Ach, I’m one of those idealist types who believe the BBC must be protected. I’m bombarded with adverts everywhere I go, and I don’t really need more. The BBC does a lot of things wrong, but most of the time it’s an oasis free from consumerism. TV- wise, I rarely watch anything else. And iPlayer is a thing of wonder.
What he said.
Our TV licence is due for renewal soon. I hardly watch any TV and have pretty much been renewing out of habit for some years. But I probably won’t this year having finally go it into my head that I can watch virtually anything I want on catch-up. I suspect this applies to increasingly sizeable minority of people. If so, then the licence fee will, over time, struggle increasingly to provide the income the BBC has grown used to.
You can’t just choose not to renew. If you have a TV and access to the BBC in any form including catch up or iPlayer, you have to pay, unless you can prove that your set cannot receive any BBC content. It’s still a criminal offence not to pay.
Not strictly true anymore. It used to be that if you had any equipment capable of receiving a broadcast signal, you needed a licence. Now you only need a licence if you watch or record anything as it’s broadcast. So if all you watch are programmes via the iPlayer and not actually live or from recordings on your Sky+/Tivo thing, you do NOT need a licence.
This is frankly ridiculous and I’m not quite sure why the BBC (my employer for the last 27 years, I should add) moved the goalposts in this fashion. I wonder how all the people now opting out of the licence to watch BBC programmes this way, or listen to the radio, or use the websites think that the content they’re enjoying for ‘nowt actually gets made?? Alchemy?
BBC4 transferring to BBC2, BBC3 being set=up as the Yoof-Channel (and rarely containing anything worth watching (or am I just old)). Low-cost, easy to make programmes filling daytime TV.
Despite all this curmudgeonlyness, I will defend the BBC to the hilt – there are accusations of bias, how it may not be meeting it’s remit to serve the public blah blah – but it is better than the alternative (ITV) and certainly better than the endless repeats or VERY cheap programmes filling up the satellite/cable channels.
and on the subject of the Licence Fee:
@gatz
James Martin played the chef in Titus Andronicus.
“Ready, steady… Serve cold.”
I simply get rid of the TV set and watch catch up on a tablet or computer. Alternatively I keep the TV and use it as a monitor using a web link. Perfectly legal so long as I have removed the link that brings in the live signal. As long as I don’t watch live TV as it is being broadcast I don’t need a licence. You can check this on, for example, Money saving expert.com.
So no, given my viewing habits I don’t need to buy a licence.
I stand corrected!
Isn’t moneysavingexpert full of people who buy things from Betterwear that haven’t really had a purpose since 1958, and hoover their net-curtains on a weekly basis?
Quite possibly. It is also useful if you haven’t got much money. Or if you want to find a quick online reference when you want doublecheck you haven’t misinterpreted something.
You should check out the Consumer Action Group, which is funded by donations, and unlikely to attract “affiliate” links that bring in enough profit for the website owner to sell out to the tune of £87m. Just saying.
And how do you think the content you’re enjoying gets paid for? Quite happy to let licence-fee payers fund your TV-watching, yeah? Perfectly legal it may be, selfish it most definitely is.
Given that BBC revenue was £5.1 billion in ’13/’14, £3.7 billion of which came from license fees, one would hope that they could produce a decent programme or two.
It’s now a commercial behemoth which directly impacts adversely on small local media businesses.
They should be reminded of their public service broadcasting requirement and restricted to running a couple of channels and a couple of national radio stations. The numbers of senior management should be decimated; the exorbitant amounts they pay their senior management and the on-camera ‘talent’ should be slashed; the ludicrously large expenses they claim should be reduced.
I used to, once upon a time, enjoy the output of the BBC, but find now that I’ll only watch BBC4 occasionally and MOTD and This Week on BBC1. I’m old enough to remember when BBC2 was even rather worthy. All that being said, my current favourite programmes, courtesy of my, admittedly, very expensive SKY subscription, are reruns of ‘Sgt. Bilko’and Emma Peel-era ‘The Avengers’. Nostalgia is a killer.
It’s become a rather smug and arrogant organisation in my opinion, populated by rather smug and arrogant individuals.
For once, I will make no mention of which low-circulation broadsheet is the house journal.
Gasp! You’re a Murdoch-payer! I won’t have anything tainted by that man in the house. I imagine the in-house low circulation broadsheet is probably the same one I buy each Saturday, mainly for the handy TV guide. If I don’t get to the village shop by about 9:30 they’ve sold all six of the copies they take.
For the record the Beeb buys nearly as many of the Daily M**l as The Guardian.
Well said Ianess. I think I watch/ like more BBC TV output than you, but I am always constantly amazed at the mangement/salary structure.
I think there is a air of complacency at the BBC & I think the licence fee as it is wont be with us in 10 years. That said, in a new style BBC, I would happily pay a subscription fee.
Finally, can I just say that it is good to have you back.
I’m a sports nut, so it’s my only option, unfortunately. I take the film channels also. Very expensive once they know they’ve got you by the goolies. I’m also convinced that the crappy Amstrad boxes are made to break down regularly so Sky can stiff subscribers for insurance.