General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by denphone

Well it won't make any difference to me what channels it is on as l don't watch such over-rated rubbish.

I wasn't aware it had ever been rated?

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by passingbat

It's just 'I hate the BBC' andy_m trying to find something that he thinks will reflect badly on the BBC. It doesn't of course; the BBC buys in loads of content made by other companies.

Actually I think it's more desperate from BT than the BBC, but I am disappointed that this will be used to reflect the BBC's "commitment to sport" which, in my opinion, is actually just something they pay lip service to.

And I don't "hate" the BBC. But, and we're going over old ground here, I don't watch it and I don't like the institutional bias in its news output, so I'd like the option of not having to pay for it.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Actually I think it's more desperate from BT than the BBC, but I am disappointed that this will be used to reflect the BBC's "commitment to sport" which, in my opinion, is actually just something they pay lip service to.

And I don't "hate" the BBC. But, and we're going over old ground here, I don't watch it and I don't like the institutional bias in its news output, so I'd like the option of not having to pay for it.

So how do you know it has institutional bias in its news output if you don't watch it Andy?...

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Actually I think it's more desperate from BT than the BBC, but I am disappointed that this will be used to reflect the BBC's "commitment to sport" which, in my opinion, is actually just something they pay lip service to.

And I don't "hate" the BBC. But, and we're going over old ground here, I don't watch it and I don't like the institutional bias in its news output, so I'd like the option of not having to pay for it.

Seriously, you have never watched at least one series of anything in the past? No Generation game? no Big Break? no Top Gear? No Steptoe and Son, no Dad's Army, no Last of The Summer Wine? no Apprentice? no League of Gentlemen? no Alan Partridge? no Question of Sport, no Only Connect, no Mastermind? no FA cup when Palace have played? no Match of the day!?!

How could you have not watched any of the 2012 Olympics? The feel good mood of the country was awesome, thanks mainly to the BBC showing the Olympics FTA.


When was the last full year you went without watching or listening to something on the BBC or which was comissioned by the BBC? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014?

I don't watch VIVA, music channels, shopping channels etc. Can I petition VM not to pay for those? No, I have to accept that I have to help spread the cost for the others who do.

Oh, I don't smoke either. I would like the option not to pay for the medical costs attributed to those who do smoke. Where do I go to whinge about my tax concerns in this case? That's right, I can't. I do like a drink now and again, so can my money be put into research for drink related problems? No, that's right, it can't.

The BBC is and always will be a tax, it is as simple as that.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

So how do you know it has institutional bias in its news output if you don't watch it Andy?...

They've admitted it.

---------- Post added at 06:10 ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Seriously, you have never watched at least one series of anything in the past? No Generation game? no Big Break? no Top Gear? No Steptoe and Son, no Dad's Army, no Last of The Summer Wine? no Apprentice? no League of Gentlemen? no Alan Partridge? no Question of Sport, no Only Connect, no Mastermind? no FA cup when Palace have played? no Match of the day!?!

How could you have not watched any of the 2012 Olympics? The feel good mood of the country was awesome, thanks mainly to the BBC showing the Olympics FTA.


When was the last full year you went without watching or listening to something on the BBC or which was comissioned by the BBC? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014?

I don't watch VIVA, music channels, shopping channels etc. Can I petition VM not to pay for those? No, I have to accept that I have to help spread the cost for the others who do.

Oh, I don't smoke either. I would like the option not to pay for the medical costs attributed to those who do smoke. Where do I go to whinge about my tax concerns in this case? That's right, I can't. I do like a drink now and again, so can my money be put into research for drink related problems? No, that's right, it can't.

The BBC is and always will be a tax, it is as simple as that.

Yes, I watched the Olympics. But I have multi-channel television with both Of the major sport networks - I would have been able to watch the Olympics regardless of where they were shown. I can honestly say that whilst I've been responsible for paying the licence fee I haven't watched any of the shows you've listed.

You can petition all you like, but you have a choice to subscribe to them or not, so it's not quite the same thing.

I'm not really prepared to respond to an argument that equates serious medical complaints with telly.

The licence fee isn't a tax, but I don't like it - does the fact that you've listed some other things that are wrong mean I have to be quiet about it?

As far as the subject goes then I see this deal as an indication that BT aren't doing quite as well from a viewership and a revenue point of view as they would like and the innovation in this deal is the fact that now more people can watch it and they can earn some money from it.

---------- Post added at 06:19 ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 ----------

In 2006 senior figures admitted a "cultural liberal bias"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/yes-w...s-7088133.html

In 2010 the DG admitted a "massive bias to the left"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-c...s-6509105.html

In 2013 an internal report into impartiality found a "deep liberal bias"

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...as-immigration

This last report cost £175,000 of our money. The BBC, who commissioned the report and spent our money on it, dismissed it as merely having some "interesting insights".

Just in case anybody wants d me to provide sources for.my earlier post.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by andy_m

They've admitted it.

---------- Post added at 06:10 ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 ----------



Yes, I watched the Olympics. But I have multi-channel television with both Of the major sport networks - I would have been able to watch the Olympics regardless of where they were shown. I can honestly say that whilst I've been responsible for paying the licence fee I haven't watched any of the shows you've listed.

You can petition all you like, but you have a choice to subscribe to them or not, so it's not quite the same thing.

I'm not really prepared to respond to an argument that equates serious medical complaints with telly.

The licence fee isn't a tax, but I don't like it - does the fact that you've listed some other things that are wrong mean I have to be quiet about it?

As far as the subject goes then I see this deal as an indication that BT aren't doing quite as well from a viewership and a revenue point of view as they would like and the innovation in this deal is the fact that now more people can watch it and they can earn some money from it.

---------- Post added at 06:19 ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 ----------

In 2006 senior figures admitted a "cultural liberal bias"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/yes-w...s-7088133.html

In 2010 the DG admitted a "massive bias to the left"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-c...s-6509105.html

In 2013 an internal report into impartiality found a "deep liberal bias"

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...as-immigration

This last report cost £175,000 of our money. The BBC, who commissioned the report and spent our money on it, dismissed it as merely having some "interesting insights".

Just in case anybody wants d me to provide sources for.my earlier post.

My points were rhetorical, perhaps I should have mentioned that. They were not meant to cause debate.

Since you have mentioned it though, I can drop my package, but I lose my HD channels. The principle of the argument is the same. I have to pay for channels I don't watch watch. It's not a problem for me though, as I know many other people enjoy them.
Again, the smoking point was rhetorical, I know a number of smokers and I want them to stay as healthy as they can, for as long as they can. In theory though, I could use the argument that I am paying for a nhs service I have never used or intend to use - why should I pay for that service?

Nope, you can be as vocal as you want. I hope this does not mean I am not to allowed to challenge people on their views though?

Again, not looking to cause a debate on this, will welcome any further comments from your goodself though.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by andy_m

As far as the subject goes then I see this deal as an indication that BT aren't doing quite as well from a viewership and a revenue point of view as they would like and the innovation in this deal is the fact that now more people can watch it and they can earn some money from it.

I think one great advantage it gives the programme is that a rapidly-increased audience size should make it attractive to sporting personalities to appear on. As a new show, it started off with bundles of goodwill but to guarantee high calibre guests, it needed to up its ratings significantly. I think the money involved will be pretty insignificant compared to the benefits of increased viewership.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Originally Posted by andy_m

This last report cost £175,000 of our money. The BBC, who commissioned the report and spent our money on it, dismissed it as merely having some "interesting insights".

In fairness, that was commissioned by the BBC's regulator, the BBC Trust and not the BBC itself. In the future, Andrew Marr has suggested that regulation could be taken over by Ofcom. And the BBC itself did not dismiss it either. The article you linked to quotes a BBC spokesman as saying ""We agree it is always vital to guard against unconscious bias or 'group think' and will continue to do so and we've committed to a number of actions to improve our coverage even further." Committing to a number of actions is obviously not dismissing the report; I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

My points were rhetorical, perhaps I should have mentioned that. They were not meant to cause debate.

Since you have mentioned it though, I can drop my package, but I lose my HD channels. The principle of the argument is the same. I have to pay for channels I don't watch watch. It's not a problem for me though, as I know many other people enjoy them.
Again, the smoking point was rhetorical, I know a number of smokers and I want them to stay as healthy as they can, for as long as they can. In theory though, I could use the argument that I am paying for a nhs service I have never used or intend to use - why should I pay for that service?

Nope, you can be as vocal as you want. I hope this does not mean I am not to allowed to challenge people on their views though?

Again, not looking to cause a debate on this, will welcome any further comments from your goodself though.

You can drop your package and lose your hd channels, but there is nothing to stop you then getting hd channels elsewhere.

If you want to consume tv or radio from ANY source you must pay the licence fee regardless of whether or not you consume any of the products it pays for.

I'm fine not debating, but I simply do not see them as the same thing.

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think one great advantage it gives the programme is that a rapidly-increased audience size should make it attractive to sporting personalities to appear on. As a new show, it started off with bundles of goodwill but to guarantee high calibre guests, it needed to up its ratings significantly. I think the money involved will be pretty insignificant compared to the benefits of increased viewership.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

In fairness, that was commissioned by the BBC's regulator, the BBC Trust and not the BBC itself. In the future, Andrew Marr has suggested that regulation could be taken over by Ofcom. And the BBC itself did not dismiss it either. The article you linked to quotes a BBC spokesman as saying ""We agree it is always vital to guard against unconscious bias or 'group think' and will continue to do so and we've committed to a number of actions to improve our coverage even further." Committing to a number of actions is obviously not dismissing the report; I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Mainly because they haven't set out what they are!

Re. your first point, insignificant or not, I am uncomfortable with an on going subscription channel being allowed a weekly half hour long advert on the national broadcaster and being paid public money for the privilege. Using the licence fee to pay for a full length repeat of a show broadcast the night before on a subscription channel is not the same as the BBC buying in content from private content producing companies.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Mainly because they haven't set out what they are!

Not in that quote as it's only a newspaper article but they will have done. Hopefully, on my other point, you agree that the £175k report on the BBC was done by its regulator and not the Corporation itself.

Originally Posted by andy_m

Re. your first point, insignificant or not, I am uncomfortable with an on going subscription channel being allowed a weekly half hour long advert on the national broadcaster and being paid public money for the privilege.

I think we would all agree with that statement but that's not what is happening here. It's content and it's not an advert. The fact that it was broadcast earlier on BT Sport obviously doesn't harm BT Sport unless the programme is poor but I doubt it will be seen as a BT Sport advert. Let's see what the finished product looks like, I'm sure the BBC and BT will both be wary of the scrutiny this programme will get from BT's competitors.

Originally Posted by andy_m

Using the licence fee to pay for a full length repeat of a show broadcast the night before on a subscription channel is not the same as the BBC buying in content from private content producing companies.

As highlighted previously, it's not a full-length repeat but an edited version, condensed down from 45 minutes. This should ensure any BT Sport references can be edited out.
Finding a pure-play TV production company is quite hard with the likes of channel owners ITV, Sky and Fox busily acquiring the remaining companies.
There is a similar but not identical precedent for the BBC's acquisition of this content. It will show the next series of Ripper Street which premiered on Amazon. I'm sure there are many others. I appreciate that a show from BT wil gather more attention given the rivalry between it and Sky for sports rights.

[andy_m]

If I'm honest I think you're splitting hairs a bit , at least in terms of this debate, in differentiating between the BBC and the BBC trust, although yes I recognise that they are separate bodies - however a quick check of the trustees register of interest shows that one trustee is married to a member of the BBC's news team, etc.

Either way, yes, fair enough, the report was done by the regulator, not the corporation.

Or in other words there have been admissions of bias by employees of the corporation, its executive AND its regulator. So, thanks for making that point for me, I guess.

As for the rest, like you say, we'll have to see when the programme airs.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by andy_m

a quick check of the trustees register of interest shows that one trustee is married to a member of the BBC's news team, etc.

.

Stop the press!!!.... another scandal hits the BBC. Shocking, quite simply, shocking!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by andy_m

If I'm honest I think you're splitting hairs a bit , at least in terms of this debate, in differentiating between the BBC and the BBC trust, although yes I recognise that they are separate bodies - however a quick check of the trustees register of interest shows that one trustee is married to a member of the BBC's news team, etc.

Either way, yes, fair enough, the report was done by the regulator, not the corporation.

Or in other words there have been admissions of bias by employees of the corporation, its executive AND its regulator. So, thanks for making that point for me, I guess.

As for the rest, like you say, we'll have to see when the programme airs.

It's confusing that the regulator (BBC Trust) has BBC in its title but it and the BBC are two separate bodies and the distinction is important for this discussion. It wasn't the BBC's decision to commission the £175k report on bias so it can't be criticised for it in the same way that Sky or BT can't be criticised for a £175k Ofcom report on their activities.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding the marriage between a trustee and a member of the BBC's news team is. It doesn't make them the same entity.
Your point about bias is a powerful one and is impossible to disagree with as the BBC itself acknowledged it. I feel that your side comments unintentionally weaken your point though.
But I think it's correct that licence fee payers like you scrutinise the BBC and keep it on its toes. I share some of your concerns but I take a more optimistic view of things until I'm proven wrong. I look forward to watching the programme with keen interest now.

[Anypermitedroute]

Could the move to show Claire balding show a possible indicator that a cosy relationship is being built between BT and BBC and champions league football which BT promise to show one game for each English team could be shown on BBC?

[denphone]

l doubt it.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

Could the move to show Claire balding show a possible indicator that a cosy relationship is being built between BT and BBC and champions league football which BT promise to show one game for each English team could be shown on BBC?

Some how I doubt it as I don`t think the BBC can afford it. My feeling is BT will do a deal with ITV? or create a unscrambled channel on freeview?