http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm

"Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
primetime shows when they should be urged to be entertaining, a
senior
TV figure says. Peter Fincham, ITV's director of TV, claimed regulator
Ofcom
was dismissive of pure "entertainment" programmes.........."

Does he consider the plethora of "lifestyle" shows as niche, marginal
and worthy? I would consider them plentiful, unentertaining,
functional,
cheap and of no artistic merit whatsoever.

YMMV.

fr

Fr J. Hackett wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
> 
> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
> primetime shows when they should be urged to be entertaining, a
> senior TV figure says. Peter Fincham, ITV's director of TV, claimed
> regulator Ofcom was dismissive of pure "entertainment" programmes.........."

What "pure entertainment" shows does ITV have?

It's a long time since "Sunday Night At The London Palladium".

On 23 Aug, 00:02, JNugent  wrote:
> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>
> > "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
> > primetime shows when they should be urged to be entertaining, a
> > senior TV figure says. Peter Fincham, ITV's director of TV, claimed
> > regulator Ofcom was dismissive of pure "entertainment" programmes.........."
>
> What "pure entertainment" shows does ITV have?

News at Ten?

fr.

Fr J. Hackett wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:

>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm

>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
>>> primetime shows when they should be urged to be entertaining, a
>>> senior TV figure says. Peter Fincham, ITV's director of TV, claimed
>>> regulator Ofcom was dismissive of pure "entertainment" programmes.........."

>> What "pure entertainment" shows does ITV have?

> News at Ten?

??

It doesn't make me laugh.

On Aug 23, 12:02 am, JNugent  wrote:
> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>
> > "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
> > primetime shows when they should be urged to be entertaining, a
> > senior TV figure says. Peter Fincham, ITV's director of TV, claimed
> > regulator Ofcom was dismissive of pure "entertainment" programmes......> What "pure entertainment" shows does ITV have?

What's that got to do with anything? Some guy from
itv (and who are the other directors? and of what?) is
on a platform making a speech for which he's had
ample time to make a speech to the gathered heads
of various television stations on various platforms. It's
his time of the year to deliver something to give all
the other broadcasters something to run wee-wee-wee
all the way home with, without giving too much away.

Once upon a time itv was regional broadcasters; these
days it's more honest to call it Carlton-Granada.

So itv has no music shows at all.

Some people go to watch sporting events to be
entertained. How is itv4's coverage of motosport in
any way being dismissed by OFCOM? After all, it
was itv who opted out of their contractual obligation
to broadcast formula one not OFCOM who sneered
down their collective nostril and derided it.

Okay they don't bother with speedway or motorcross
or trials, but they do do rally action, touring cars,
BSB and so forth.

I don't understand why people find football entertaining.
This does not make me popular, particularly, but it is
true nonetheless. But for those of a Pavlovian bent,
and particularly the pack animals, it is pure entertainment,
or religion (which itv don't do now).

> It's a long time since "Sunday Night At The London Palladium".

Is there a pointer to the whole speech? And, if not, then
what was the point of making it? It's hardly exemplary
of logical rigour to berate the state of public service requirements
without making the beration public.

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On Aug 23, 12:02 am, JNugent  wrote:
>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
>>> primetime shows when they should be urged to be entertaining, a
>>> senior TV figure says. Peter Fincham, ITV's director of TV, claimed
>>> regulator Ofcom was dismissive of pure "entertainment" programmes.........."
>> What "pure entertainment" shows does ITV have?
> 
> What's that got to do with anything? Some guy from
> itv (and who are the other directors? and of what?) is
> on a platform making a speech for which he's had
> ample time to make a speech to the gathered heads
> of various television stations on various platforms. It's
> his time of the year to deliver something to give all
> the other broadcasters something to run wee-wee-wee
> all the way home with, without giving too much away.
> 
> Once upon a time itv was regional broadcasters; these
> days it's more honest to call it Carlton-Granada.
> 
> So itv has no music shows at all.
> 
> Some people go to watch sporting events to be
> entertained. How is itv4's coverage of motosport in
> any way being dismissed by OFCOM? After all, it
> was itv who opted out of their contractual obligation
> to broadcast formula one not OFCOM who sneered
> down their collective nostril and derided it.
> 
> Okay they don't bother with speedway or motorcross
> or trials, but they do do rally action, touring cars,
> BSB and so forth.
> 
> I don't understand why people find football entertaining.
> This does not make me popular, particularly, but it is
> true nonetheless. But for those of a Pavlovian bent,
> and particularly the pack animals, it is pure entertainment,
> or religion (which itv don't do now).
> 
>> It's a long time since "Sunday Night At The London Palladium".
> 
> Is there a pointer to the whole speech? And, if not, then
> what was the point of making it? It's hardly exemplary
> of logical rigour to berate the state of public service requirements
> without making the beration public.
> 
> G DAEB
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON

<boggle>

There must/may be a point in there somewhere.

But I'm b******d if I can see it.

On Aug 23, 12:27 am, JNugent  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 12:02 am, JNugent  wrote:
> >> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
> >>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
> >>> primetime shows when they should be urged to be entertaining, a
> >>> senior TV figure says. Peter Fincham, ITV's director of TV, claimed
> >>> regulator Ofcom was dismissive of pure "entertainment" programmes....> >> What "pure entertainment" shows does ITV have?
>
> > What's that got to do with anything? Some guy from
> > itv (and who are the other directors? and of what?) is
> > on a platform making a speech for which he's had
> > ample time to make a speech to the gathered heads
> > of various television stations on various platforms. It's
> > his time of the year to deliver something to give all
> > the other broadcasters something to run wee-wee-wee
> > all the way home with, without giving too much away.
>
> > Once upon a time itv was regional broadcasters; these
> > days it's more honest to call it Carlton-Granada.
>
> > So itv has no music shows at all.
>
> > Some people go to watch sporting events to be
> > entertained. How is itv4's coverage of motosport in
> > any way being dismissed by OFCOM? After all, it
> > was itv who opted out of their contractual obligation
> > to broadcast formula one not OFCOM who sneered
> > down their collective nostril and derided it.
>
> > Okay they don't bother with speedway or motorcross
> > or trials, but they do do rally action, touring cars,
> > BSB and so forth.
>
> > I don't understand why people find football entertaining.
> > This does not make me popular, particularly, but it is
> > true nonetheless. But for those of a Pavlovian bent,
> > and particularly the pack animals, it is pure entertainment,
> > or religion (which itv don't do now).
>
> >> It's a long time since "Sunday Night At The London Palladium".
>
> > Is there a pointer to the whole speech? And, if not, then
> > what was the point of making it? It's hardly exemplary
> > of logical rigour to berate the state of public service requirements
> > without making the beration public.
>
> > G DAEB
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON
>
> <boggle>
>
> There must/may be a point in there somewhere.
>
> But I'm b******d if I can see it.- Hide quoted text -

So Vic and Bob at 8PM on itv1 gets your vote then?

Oooh, no. They were critical of some things, so it
wasn't pure entertainment--the resemblances to
Morecambe and Wise (glasses, straight guy) and
The Two Ronnies (desk) notwithstanding?

> - Show quoted text -

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON
--

On Aug 23, 12:27 am, JNugent  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 12:02 am, JNugent  wrote:
> >> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
> >>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
> >>> primetime shows when they should be urged to be entertaining, a
> >>> senior TV figure says. Peter Fincham, ITV's director of TV, claimed
> >>> regulator Ofcom was dismissive of pure "entertainment" programmes....> >> What "pure entertainment" shows does ITV have?
>
> > What's that got to do with anything? Some guy from
> > itv (and who are the other directors? and of what?) is
> > on a platform making a speech for which he's had
> > ample time to make a speech to the gathered heads
> > of various television stations on various platforms. It's
> > his time of the year to deliver something to give all
> > the other broadcasters something to run wee-wee-wee
> > all the way home with, without giving too much away.
>
> > Once upon a time itv was regional broadcasters; these
> > days it's more honest to call it Carlton-Granada.
>
> > So itv has no music shows at all.
>
> > Some people go to watch sporting events to be
> > entertained. How is itv4's coverage of motosport in
> > any way being dismissed by OFCOM? After all, it
> > was itv who opted out of their contractual obligation
> > to broadcast formula one not OFCOM who sneered
> > down their collective nostril and derided it.
>
> > Okay they don't bother with speedway or motorcross
> > or trials, but they do do rally action, touring cars,
> > BSB and so forth.
>
> > I don't understand why people find football entertaining.
> > This does not make me popular, particularly, but it is
> > true nonetheless. But for those of a Pavlovian bent,
> > and particularly the pack animals, it is pure entertainment,
> > or religion (which itv don't do now).
>
> >> It's a long time since "Sunday Night At The London Palladium".
>
> > Is there a pointer to the whole speech? And, if not, then
> > what was the point of making it? It's hardly exemplary
> > of logical rigour to berate the state of public service requirements
> > without making the beration public.
>
> > G DAEB
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON
>
> <boggle>
>
> There must/may be a point in there somewhere.
>
> But I'm b******d if I can see it.- Hide quoted text -

Okay, so "You've Been Framed" was "pure entertainment"?

> - Show quoted text -

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON
--

Fr J. Hackett wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>
> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
> primetime shows ..

So when are ITV going to start making some then?



-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring" 
wrote:

>Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>
>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
>> primetime shows ..
>
>So when are ITV going to start making some then?

When they receive 50% of the licence fee?
-- 

Martin

Martin wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring" 
> wrote:
> 
>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>>
>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
>>> primetime shows ..
>> So when are ITV going to start making some then?
> 
> When they receive 50% of the licence fee?

Does that mean they'll stop having adverts? Good.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:22:24 +0100, Simon Dean  wrote:

>Martin wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>>>
>>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
>>>> primetime shows ..
>>> So when are ITV going to start making some then?
>> 
>> When they receive 50% of the licence fee?
>
>Does that mean they'll stop having adverts? Good.

At the same time as the BBC stops wasting time advertising its programmes.
-- 

Martin

Martin wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring"
>  wrote:
>
>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>>
>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and
>>> worthy" primetime shows ..
>>
>> So when are ITV going to start making some then?
>
> When they receive 50% of the licence fee?

I read somewhere (but cannot confirm) that ITV make as much as the BBC get 
for the LF.

So why aren't /their/ programmes as good? Well, mainly because they /have/ 
to make stuff that the majority of people are /guaranteed/ to watch so they 
can sell the advertising spaces in and around the shows. Plus, don't forget 
that they are wanting to /completely drop/ their PSB and news requirements.

*That* is why there is never any "risky", "niche", "minority" -  call it 
what you want - programming on their channels.

If it wasn't ITV then it was Sky. However, the same reasoning still applies.

The BBC can only do what they do *because* of their guaranteed income which, 
of course, would be a lot higher if some people didn't break the law and not 
pay the LF.


-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message 
news:rh52b45dqma0rp0f2oul28hkel8m45s6i1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:22:24 +0100, Simon Dean  wrote:
>
>>Martin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring" 
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
>>>>> primetime shows ..
>>>> So when are ITV going to start making some then?
>>>
>>> When they receive 50% of the licence fee?
>>
>>Does that mean they'll stop having adverts? Good.
>
> At the same time as the BBC stops wasting time advertising its programmes.

So you don't mind if the BBC /makes/ shows, you just don't want anyone to 
/know/ about them?

Erm... okay.


-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

Carl Waring wrote:
> "Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:rh52b45dqma0rp0f2oul28hkel8m45s6i1@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:22:24 +0100, Simon Dean  wrote:
>>
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring" 
>>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and worthy"
>>>>>> primetime shows ..
>>>>> So when are ITV going to start making some then?
>>>> When they receive 50% of the licence fee?
>>> Does that mean they'll stop having adverts? Good.
>> At the same time as the BBC stops wasting time advertising its programmes.
> 
> So you don't mind if the BBC /makes/ shows, you just don't want anyone to 
> /know/ about them?
> 
> Erm... okay.

I didn't realise that the BBC advertised its programmes on commercial 
channels. I can see why that might be a good idea. They could also 
publish a weekly guide to what's on TV and radio. They can have that 
idea free.

What is not a good idea is the BBC making programmes atart late so that 
they can show a trailer (which should be seen as filler material, a bit 
like the 1950s interlude films - Potter's Wheel, Cat with Wool, etc).

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:27:31 +0100, "Carl Waring" 
wrote:

>Martin wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>>>
>>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and
>>>> worthy" primetime shows ..
>>>
>>> So when are ITV going to start making some then?
>>
>> When they receive 50% of the licence fee?
>
>I read somewhere (but cannot confirm) that ITV make as much as the BBC get 
>for the LF.
>
>So why aren't /their/ programmes as good?

because the money goes to the shareholders.
-- 

Martin

Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:27:31 +0100, "Carl Waring"
>  wrote:
>
>> Martin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and
>>>>> worthy" primetime shows ..
>>>>
>>>> So when are ITV going to start making some then?
>>>
>>> When they receive 50% of the licence fee?
>>
>> I read somewhere (but cannot confirm) that ITV make as much as the
>> BBC get for the LF.
>>
>> So why aren't /their/ programmes as good?
>
> because the money goes to the shareholders.

Exactly!

The question was kinda rhetorical ;-)

-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

JNugent wrote:
> Carl Waring wrote:
>> "Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:rh52b45dqma0rp0f2oul28hkel8m45s6i1@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:22:24 +0100, Simon Dean 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:23:28 +0100, "Carl Waring"
>>>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fr J. Hackett wrote:
>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7576821.stm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Broadcasters are under pressure to make "niche, marginal and
>>>>>>> worthy" primetime shows ..
>>>>>> So when are ITV going to start making some then?
>>>>> When they receive 50% of the licence fee?
>>>> Does that mean they'll stop having adverts? Good.
>>> At the same time as the BBC stops wasting time advertising its
>>> programmes.
>>
>> So you don't mind if the BBC /makes/ shows, you just don't want
>> anyone to /know/ about them?
>>
>> Erm... okay.
>
> I didn't realise that the BBC advertised its programmes on commercial
> channels.

Of course, they don't.

Just a thought, but you do know the difference between a promo for an 
up-coming TV show and an actual /commercial/ don't you?

> They could also
> publish a weekly guide to what's on TV and radio. They can have that
> idea free.

Of course, they do that, but I would have thought a week or mores advance 
notice might be a good idea too.

> What is not a good idea is the BBC making programmes atart late so

Good job they don't do that then, isn't it. At least, not the five (or more) 
minutes late some of the commercial channels (C/E/More 4 for prime examples) 
do.


-- 
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

> If it wasn't ITV then it was Sky. However, the same reasoning still 
> applies.
>
> The BBC can only do what they do *because* of their guaranteed income 
> which, of course, would be a lot higher if some people didn't break the 
> law and not pay the LF.
>



I am glad I am contributing to the BBC's restraint on its spending then.

Budget is not proportional to quality / value.