The Lemon Fool

mc2fool wrote:

didds wrote:

Lootman wrote:OK, so 99.8% of the UK population has not complained?

Indeed. But even that bald statistic doesnt include the nuance of what % doesn't actually care either way?

If 99.5% are ambivalent that then brings the complainers into a 60% majority over those that defend the coverage to the hilt.

"96% of unhappy customers don’t complain" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130604 ... ut-haven-t

Further arithmetic left as an exercise for the reader.

A cynic might counter that if you are unhappy but do not care enough to be bothered to do anything about it, then your vote should not count either way.

I often think the same thing when I see a media report that "100,000 people marched in protest against X". I would express it as "67.5 million people did not care enough to march in protest against X".

Lootman wrote:I often think the same thing when I see a media report that "100,000 people marched in protest against X". I would express it as "67.5 million people did not care enough to march in protest against X".

true... but then equally if the march is in edinburgh you can temper that with 60 million (or whatever) didnt live close enough to actually join the protest.

Or 20 million are of an age that wont attend 8(being too young etc), or similar because they are too old/infirm/unwell etc etc etc.

Arborbridge wrote:It was fitting that we had a national moment when his life was reviewed and celebrated.

Arb.

Although since the BBC viewing figures for that Friday night fell off a cliff, there were an awful lot of people who didn't want to join that 'review and celebration'.

Lootman wrote:A cynic might counter that if you are unhappy but do not care enough to be bothered to do anything about it, then your vote should not count either way.

I often think the same thing when I see a media report that "100,000 people marched in protest against X". I would express it as "67.5 million people did not care enough to march in protest against X".

Do you really think the BBC will pay any attention to the 100k of complaints? Of course not. When the Queen dies then exactly the same thing will happen again (although probably for longer).

AF62 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:It was fitting that we had a national moment when his life was reviewed and celebrated.

Arb.

Although since the BBC viewing figures for that Friday night fell off a cliff, there were an awful lot of people who didn't want to join that 'review and celebration'.

I quite agree, but I am not sure that shows it was the wrong thing to do. One could say there was virtue signalling going on, or that the TV channels were just all being like "Auntie". Whatever, I still think they needed to do it, and there are masses of other channels for people to watch so there's no shortage of choice.

If we are a nation in such a rut that we can't stop for a moment to honour one of our best, that seems incredibly sad. Time was, that we would have the whole nation united watching such a thing with a sense of togetherness. Actually, that struck me about some of the old news footage shown recently about the monarchy - just how huge and enthusiastic crowds used to be. I wonder if this nation of cynics would bother to turn out now at all, or in more than a few hundred, to great processions for national events.

Arb.

AF62 wrote:

Lootman wrote:A cynic might counter that if you are unhappy but do not care enough to be bothered to do anything about it, then your vote should not count either way.

I often think the same thing when I see a media report that "100,000 people marched in protest against X". I would express it as "67.5 million people did not care enough to march in protest against X".

Do you really think the BBC will pay any attention to the 100k of complaints? Of course not. When the Queen dies then exactly the same thing will happen again (although probably for longer).

I agree that the BBC will not pay any attention to the complainers. And in my view it should not since, when expressed as a percentage of viewers, 100,000 is a trivial number. For much the same reason I do not think that the government should pay much attention to protests, marches and demonstrations.

The alternative would be to give a disproportionate say to small but vociferous minorities.

That does beg the question of what the BBC should respond to in terms of viewer feedback. I would assume they conduct opinion polls and focus groups, which should give a better sense of what the silent majority of license payers think. Complainants and protesters are self-selecting groups, who may not be representative of the population as a whole.

Arborbridge wrote:I quite agree, but I am not sure that shows it was the wrong thing to do. One could say there was virtue signalling going on, or that the TV channels were just all being like "Auntie". Whatever, I still think they needed to do it, and there are masses of other channels for people to watch so there's no shortage of choice.

It wasn't the issue of the BBC broadcasting something that some people might have been interested in, it was the authoritarian decision to broadcast the same stuff on all the channels that was issue.

Of course the BBC needed to show something, perhaps an hour long retrospective mid-evening on BBC 1. But to try to force-feed people hours upon hours of nothingness - no, they messed up badly there.

Arborbridge wrote:If we are a nation in such a rut that we can't stop for a moment to honour one of our best, that seems incredibly sad. Time was, that we would have the whole nation united watching such a thing with a sense of togetherness. Actually, that struck me about some of the old news footage shown recently about the monarchy - just how huge and enthusiastic crowds used to be. I wonder if this nation of cynics would bother to turn out now at all, or in more than a few hundred, to great processions for national events.

Arb.

For lots (most?) of the country the royal family are an irrelevance, and their tabloid exploits over the last few decades certainly means that a lot of people don't hold them in high regard.

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:

Lootman wrote:A cynic might counter that if you are unhappy but do not care enough to be bothered to do anything about it, then your vote should not count either way.

I often think the same thing when I see a media report that "100,000 people marched in protest against X". I would express it as "67.5 million people did not care enough to march in protest against X".

Do you really think the BBC will pay any attention to the 100k of complaints? Of course not. When the Queen dies then exactly the same thing will happen again (although probably for longer).

I agree that the BBC will not pay any attention to the complainers. And in my view it should not since, when expressed as a percentage of viewers, 100,000 is a trivial number. For much the same reason I do not think that the government should pay much attention to protests, marches and demonstrations.

The alternative would be to give a disproportionate say to small but vociferous minorities.

So those who didn't complain because they knew it would be pointless were happy with what the BBC did?

Lootman wrote:That does beg the question of what the BBC should respond to in terms of viewer feedback. I would assume they conduct opinion polls and focus groups, which should give a better sense of what the silent majority of license payers think. Complainants and protesters are self-selecting groups, who may not be representative of the population as a whole.

The BBC will do what the BBC wants to do; nothing the public thinks will make any difference.

Arborbridge wrote:

AF62 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:It was fitting that we had a national moment when his life was reviewed and celebrated.

Arb.

Although since the BBC viewing figures for that Friday night fell off a cliff, there were an awful lot of people who didn't want to join that 'review and celebration'.

I quite agree, but I am not sure that shows it was the wrong thing to do. One could say there was virtue signalling going on, or that the TV channels were just all being like "Auntie". Whatever, I still think they needed to do it, and there are masses of other channels for people to watch so there's no shortage of choice.

If we are a nation in such a rut that we can't stop for a moment to honour one of our best, that seems incredibly sad. Time was, that we would have the whole nation united watching such a thing with a sense of togetherness. Actually, that struck me about some of the old news footage shown recently about the monarchy - just how huge and enthusiastic crowds used to be. I wonder if this nation of cynics would bother to turn out now at all, or in more than a few hundred, to great processions for national events.

Sez the man who's already stated he spent that evening watching The Third Man, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and women's football!

I do think you're over-reading the reactions ... I expect that you, like I and very likely many other people, had already watched an hour or two of DofE programming before switching to Buffy et al....

Arborbridge wrote: Actually, that struck me about some of the old news footage shown recently about the monarchy - just how huge and enthusiastic crowds used to be. I wonder if this nation of cynics would bother to turn out now at all, or in more than a few hundred, to great processions for national events.

Arb.

Well, I saw (hey, I was there anyway) both Diana's and the Queen Mother's funerals. A few years ago now of course, but also the last big royal funerals. They were both massively busy.

DM

AF62 wrote:

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:Do you really think the BBC will pay any attention to the 100k of complaints? Of course not. When the Queen dies then exactly the same thing will happen again (although probably for longer).

I agree that the BBC will not pay any attention to the complainers. And in my view it should not since, when expressed as a percentage of viewers, 100,000 is a trivial number. For much the same reason I do not think that the government should pay much attention to protests, marches and demonstrations.

The alternative would be to give a disproportionate say to small but vociferous minorities.

So those who didn't complain because they knew it would be pointless were happy with what the BBC did?

Are you suggesting that the 99.8% of the population who did not complain were all unhappy with the BBC? And that the only reason they didn't complain was because they thought it was futile?

Both may be true but there is quite simply no way to know. So it is not reasonable to assume that you do know. Of course I do not know either. But I think I am more willing to accept that it cannot be known and therefore should not be assumed.

There is a Lemon here who is fond of telling me that because I do not vote in elections, that I cannot complain about their outcomes (or even that I am not entitled to an opinion about the results). I think he is wrong on both counts, But that is not to say that anything can be assumed about my political beliefs based on the fact that I do not vote. There are other ways to express opinions although in the case of this 99.8%, they have not done so to my knowledge.

Maybe the BBC should be made a subscription-only service paid for by the license fee? Then we might know for sure the degree of approval.

mc2fool wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:

AF62 wrote:Although since the BBC viewing figures for that Friday night fell off a cliff, there were an awful lot of people who didn't want to join that 'review and celebration'.

I quite agree, but I am not sure that shows it was the wrong thing to do. One could say there was virtue signalling going on, or that the TV channels were just all being like "Auntie". Whatever, I still think they needed to do it, and there are masses of other channels for people to watch so there's no shortage of choice.

If we are a nation in such a rut that we can't stop for a moment to honour one of our best, that seems incredibly sad. Time was, that we would have the whole nation united watching such a thing with a sense of togetherness. Actually, that struck me about some of the old news footage shown recently about the monarchy - just how huge and enthusiastic crowds used to be. I wonder if this nation of cynics would bother to turn out now at all, or in more than a few hundred, to great processions for national events.

Sez the man who's already stated he spent that evening watching The Third Man, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and women's football!

I do think you're over-reading the reactions ... I expect that you, like I and very likely many other people, had already watched an hour or two of DofE programming before switching to Buffy et al....

But I had already spent a long time seeing Duke of Edinburgh programs, and if you remember, my compaint was that by that time they were becoming repetitive. I also watched the later DofE 90 minute program which I found really interesting.
I didn't complain about the coverage - it needed to be done - but for those who had been saturated in it, there were plenty of other things. I think Graham Norton got pulled, but did I complain? Nah.

I still believe they did the right thing as a mark of respect as the UK's leading "status quo" broadcaster but how each individual fitted that in to their viewing was down to them. And it wasn't all channels: Women's football was on, as you pointed out.

Arb.

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:

Lootman wrote:I agree that the BBC will not pay any attention to the complainers. And in my view it should not since, when expressed as a percentage of viewers, 100,000 is a trivial number. For much the same reason I do not think that the government should pay much attention to protests, marches and demonstrations.

The alternative would be to give a disproportionate say to small but vociferous minorities.

So those who didn't complain because they knew it would be pointless were happy with what the BBC did?

Are you suggesting that the 99.8% of the population who did not complain were all unhappy with the BBC? And that the only reason they didn't complain was because they thought it was futile?

Both may be true but there is quite simply no way to know. So it is not reasonable to assume that you do know. Of course I do not know either. But I think I am more willing to accept that it cannot be known and therefore should not be assumed.

I would agree that no conclusion can be gleaned from the number of complaints. I suspect, although obviously cannot prove, that most people don’t complain to the BBC about their output because they don’t know they can, know it won’t make any difference, and frankly cannot be bothered.

However nobody I know demanded multiple BBC channels of repeats of nothing for a Friday evening, and nobody I know went any further than being interested in his death other than joking he wouldn’t get a telegram next year from his wife.

Lootman wrote: Maybe the BBC should be made a subscription-only service paid for by the license fee? Then we might know for sure the degree of approval.

I can’t see many people willing to pay the £100 a month subscription fee.

Arborbridge wrote:I didn't complain about the coverage - it needed to be done

Why did it need to be done (and I mean multi channel saturation coverage).

AF62 wrote:Do you really think the BBC will pay any attention to the 100k of complaints? Of course not. When the Queen dies then exactly the same thing will happen again (although probably for longer).

At least a year. If not a decade.

Prob'ly.

AF62 wrote:

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:So those who didn't complain because they knew it would be pointless were happy with what the BBC did?

Are you suggesting that the 99.8% of the population who did not complain were all unhappy with the BBC? And that the only reason they didn't complain was because they thought it was futile?

Both may be true but there is quite simply no way to know. So it is not reasonable to assume that you do know. Of course I do not know either. But I think I am more willing to accept that it cannot be known and therefore should not be assumed.

I would agree that no conclusion can be gleaned from the number of complaints. I suspect, although obviously cannot prove, that most people don’t complain to the BBC about their output because they don’t know they can, know it won’t make any difference, and frankly cannot be bothered.

However nobody I know demanded multiple BBC channels of repeats of nothing for a Friday evening

Fair enough, although I would offer another reason for the indifference, and that is that watching any TV live, let alone just the BBC, is increasingly rare.

In my case pretty much the only live TV I watch when broadcasted is sports, since I personally cannot get interested in watching sports if I already know the result. Everything else I watch is either recorded by me or else is streamed, and then watched later when I feel like it. Even if it is a new series I want to watch, I prefer to hold off and then binge watch it when all the episodes are available online.

So the beeb effectively going off the air doesn't affect me at all. What this topic has made me realise is that a lot of Lemons just tune into the BBC of an evening and watch whatever is on. Maybe that is more an age thing?

Arborbridge wrote:

mc2fool wrote:I expect that you, like I and very likely many other people, had already watched an hour or two of DofE programming before switching to Buffy et al....

But I had already spent a long time seeing Duke of Edinburgh programs...

So exactly what I just said then...

And it wasn't all channels: Women's football was on, as you pointed out.

Not me, that was what you (and Alaric said), but It wasn't on BBC Four, that was suspended. He said:

Alaric wrote:Ladies Football was what came up when channel switching live on Freesat. Otherwise all the "low numbers" were showing the same thing, even BBC Alba.

Well BBC Four is on 9, which I'd call a low number, and when I flipped to it that night it was showing: https://youtu.be/RtIUYLohtv0?t=300 (not sure why the YouTuber decided to record 50 minutes of that!), which is as confirmed by the TV guide for that evening. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/guide/bbcfour/20210409

Even WIkipedia reports the same, "On 9 April 2021, the day that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh died, BBC Four was suspended for a whole day so the BBC could continue coverage of the Duke's death across its television, radio and online services. The next day (10 April) BBC Four resumed airing at the normal time of 7:00 pm.".

However, on a bit of googling it seems the women's football was on, but not on BBC Four but rather on the red button channel, which is 250 on Freeview (not a "low" number), should you have been lucky enough to stumble over it.

"It's unbelievable that they've shut down BBC Four for the night rather than show an England Women's football international v France. In what world is BBC 1, 2 News Channel and every radio station carrying the same tributes not enough.

How is sticking the football on the web/red button more respectful or proper than letting it have a channel so people who want to watch it can do so in peace and in HD? It's just such a bonkers reaction." https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussio ... gh-rip/p24

There's always Netflix...

mc2fool wrote:

Alaric wrote:Ladies Football was what came up when channel switching live on Freesat. Otherwise all the "low numbers" were showing the same thing, even BBC Alba.

Well BBC Four is on 9, which I'd call a low number

Don’t people reorder the channels and assign the number they prefer (and delete the irrelevant)?

mc2fool wrote:I bet there'll be quite a few complaints about it on Newswatch next Friday ... that is, if they don't spend most of it catching up from being bumped off by the DoE coverage this week!

Well how about that ... Newswatch catching up this week, DoE complaints next week!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000v6k9/newswatch-16042021

And now I discover the real disaster from last Friday -- the not only not showing but total dropping of the 1st episode of the new series of HIGNFY!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mkw3/episodes/player

However, it was all worth it for the first seven minutes of episode 2.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000v4t2/have-i-got-news-for-you-series-61-episode-2

mc2fool wrote:However, on a bit of googling it seems the women's football was on, but not on BBC Four but rather on the red button channel, which is 250 on Freeview (not a "low" number), should you have been lucky enough to stumble over it.

"It's unbelievable that they've shut down BBC Four for the night rather than show an England Women's football international v France. In what world is BBC 1, 2 News Channel and every radio station carrying the same tributes not enough.

How is sticking the football on the web/red button more respectful or proper than letting it have a channel so people who want to watch it can do so in peace and in HD? It's just such a bonkers reaction." https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussio ... gh-rip/p24

I've no idea why they did that, and I didn't stumble across it. RB1 is on my favourites in the guide.

Arb.

Lootman wrote: What this topic has made me realise is that a lot of Lemons just tune into the BBC of an evening and watch whatever is on. Maybe that is more an age thing?

My habit would be not as you say here, but to check what is on first, then decide whether I want to watch something, or play something I have recorded instead. Many programs we watch a day or two later, and this is often because there seems little worth watching before 9 o'clock and then one might have three things at the same hour. For instance, I've only just caught up with Too Close - an excellent drama in my view which proves actors can speak quietly but still be heard - if they don't mumble.

Arb.

I almost never watch any TV in the evening except for the 6 pm news. I prefer to read or on summer evenings sit outside with a glass of something.

Anyway in an hour or so I will break the habit of a lifetime and turn on the tele to watch Philip's funeral.

Dod