BBC - value, quality, divisive or alternatives better

[Lootman]

I think the BBC is good value for radio 4 alone. The TV is all an extra bonus. The government is pushing the BBC into a death spiral: funding cuts mean worse quality. Fewer people watch, and it's worse, so let's cut their funding some more.

What they are good at and should do more of is programming that doesn't assume you're an idiot. Anything sciency on TV is dumbed down in a way that, so far, it is not on the radio. In fact most TV science coverage has disappeared. The news coverage is getting worse. They no longer have staff to do quality investigative journalism, and dare not offend the government.

But as I read today that the owner of GB news wants to buy more media outlets, it's more important than ever to retain an island of attempted impartiality and sanity.

Isn't it about competition? The BBC was great when there was no competition. As a kid our first TV was the size of a fridge, black and white, and only got one channel - BBC. (Not BBC1 because there was no BBC2 then; ITV came along the next year).

Now there are a million channels and streaming. My kids have TVs but no terrestrial TV - they do not need it. And for news you have ITV. C4, CNN, Fox, Al Jezeera and so on.

Radio? My wife likes The Archers but that is about it.

[XFool]

I think the BBC is good value for radio 4 alone.
The TV is all an extra bonus. The government is pushing the BBC into a death spiral: funding cuts mean worse quality. Fewer people watch, and it's worse, so let's cut their funding some more.

Agree.

What they are good at and should do more of is programming that doesn't assume you're an idiot. Anything sciency on TV is dumbed down in a way that, so far, it is not on the radio. In fact most TV science coverage has disappeared. The news coverage is getting worse. They no longer have staff to do quality investigative journalism, and dare not offend the government.

Sadly, also agree. I look at the 1pm BBC 1 News... well, I do until the half time mark. Then I usually switch over to The World At One on BBC R4.

As to science on BBC. It's still there on BBC R4. But on BBC TV? Gone are all those fun and popular science(?) programmes from the 1980s - Tomorrow's World, QED and the other one: Antenna? Then there is the Grand Old Stalwart of BBC TV science programmes: Horizon. What happened? Where is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_(British_TV_series)#Criticism

Of course, some of this is down to the effective/relative(?) demise of BBC 4.

But as I read today that the owner of GB news wants to buy more media outlets, it's more important than ever to retain an island of attempted impartiality and sanity.

Absolutely!

[scotview]

What they are good at and should do more of is programming that doesn't assume you're an idiot.

Here's the thing for me. David Attenburgh's original Planet Earth series, even if filmed in 1080p, gave a superb view of world nature.

With the advent of 4k and slomo video the nature series, including Frozen Planet were truly wonderful.

Then, gradually, the emphasis shifted to a very blunt message of global warming/climate change. When I watched these later/most recent series, David "preached" environmental change. All I craved for was very high quality, wonderful video footage of our Planet......but that isn't what I got. What I did get was David's personal agenda and frankly his own opinion. I was paying for the luxury of him putting across his personal point of view.

Not good or fair to a license paying nature lover, with some very high tech and costly viewing hardware.

[Lootman]

What they are good at and should do more of is programming that doesn't assume you're an idiot.

Here's the thing for me. David Attenburgh's original Planet Earth series, even if filmed in 1080p, gave a superb view of world nature.

With the advent of 4k and slomo video the nature series, including Frozen Planet were truly wonderful.

Then, gradually, the emphasis shifted to a very blunt message of global warming/climate change. When I watched these later/most recent series, David "preached" environmental change. All I craved for was very high quality, wonderful video footage of our Planet......but that isn't what I got. What I did get was David's personal agenda and frankly his own opinion. I was paying for the luxury of him putting across his personal point of view.

Not good or fair to a license paying nature lover, with some very high tech and costly viewing hardware.

Exactly this. I really liked his earlier stuff. But now I feel like i am watching a political propaganda video with some critters on the side.

I partly give him a pass as he and I went to the same school, but even so . . .

[Arborbridge]

What they are good at and should do more of is programming that doesn't assume you're an idiot.

Here's the thing for me. David Attenburgh's original Planet Earth series, even if filmed in 1080p, gave a superb view of world nature.

With the advent of 4k and slomo video the nature series, including Frozen Planet were truly wonderful.

Then, gradually, the emphasis shifted to a very blunt message of global warming/climate change. When I watched these later/most recent series, David "preached" environmental change. All I craved for was very high quality, wonderful video footage of our Planet......but that isn't what I got. What I did get was David's personal agenda and frankly his own opinion. I was paying for the luxury of him putting across his personal point of view.

Not good or fair to a license paying nature lover, with some very high tech and costly viewing hardware.

He has a lifelong perspective on a subject he specialises in. If he gives a message or opinion based on that. then there's nothing wrong with that, in my view. He isn't presenting the news, it's his view of nature. One could easily argue he an others shouldn't mention how nature evolved because it is "an opinion". It's no different from an eminent historian explaining how an event upfolded and effect people in that time, or a physicist doing likewise about nuclear physicst or cosmology.

Look and learn from the best: or one can remain blinkered and limited by one's own ideas.

By the way, I remember his earlier programs also mentioned things concerning human intervention - maybe his further length of years digesting these facts and the deterioration he has seen makes him want to communicate this with greater urgency. In effect, he's the messenger so there's no pointing shooting him.
Arb

[Arborbridge]

Here's the thing for me. David Attenburgh's original Planet Earth series, even if filmed in 1080p, gave a superb view of world nature.

With the advent of 4k and slomo video the nature series, including Frozen Planet were truly wonderful.

Then, gradually, the emphasis shifted to a very blunt message of global warming/climate change. When I watched these later/most recent series, David "preached" environmental change. All I craved for was very high quality, wonderful video footage of our Planet......but that isn't what I got. What I did get was David's personal agenda and frankly his own opinion. I was paying for the luxury of him putting across his personal point of view.

Not good or fair to a license paying nature lover, with some very high tech and costly viewing hardware.

Exactly this. I really liked his earlier stuff. But now I feel like i am watching a political propaganda video with some critters on the side.

I partly give him a pass as he and I went to the same school, but even so . . .

You just don't like the message and that's why you don't like hearing it. You call it political propaganda, which is just a way that people have of deny truths they find unpalatable.

[Lootman]

Exactly this. I really liked his earlier stuff. But now I feel like i am watching a political propaganda video with some critters on the side.

I partly give him a pass as he and I went to the same school, but even so . . .

You just don't like the message and that's why you don't like hearing it. You call it political propaganda, which is just a way that people have of deny truths they find unpalatable.

No it is more that I want to watch a nature show and not a politics show. So I would equally oppose a nature show that tried to argue that global warming is a communist conspiracy.

[XFool]

Here's the thing for me. David Attenburgh's original Planet Earth series, even if filmed in 1080p, gave a superb view of world nature.

With the advent of 4k and slomo video the nature series, including Frozen Planet were truly wonderful.

Then, gradually, the emphasis shifted to a very blunt message of global warming/climate change. When I watched these later/most recent series, David "preached" environmental change. All I craved for was very high quality, wonderful video footage of our Planet......but that isn't what I got. What I did get was David's personal agenda and frankly his own opinion. I was paying for the luxury of him putting across his personal point of view.

Not good or fair to a license paying nature lover, with some very high tech and costly viewing hardware.

You think global warming/climate change (and related issues) is nothing more than David Attenborough's "personal point of view"?

Do you doubt David Attenborough is also a genuine "nature lover"? Such that the great changes he has already seen in nature over his life (remember his age), and is seeing, causes him genuine concern. Why would any real "nature lover" not be similarly concerned?

[XFool]

Here's the thing for me. David Attenburgh's original Planet Earth series, even if filmed in 1080p, gave a superb view of world nature.

With the advent of 4k and slomo video the nature series, including Frozen Planet were truly wonderful.

Then, gradually, the emphasis shifted to a very blunt message of global warming/climate change. When I watched these later/most recent series, David "preached" environmental change. All I craved for was very high quality, wonderful video footage of our Planet......but that isn't what I got. What I did get was David's personal agenda and frankly his own opinion. I was paying for the luxury of him putting across his personal point of view.

Not good or fair to a license paying nature lover, with some very high tech and costly viewing hardware.

He has a lifelong perspective on a subject he specialises in. If he gives a message or opinion based on that. then there's nothing wrong with that, in my view. He isn't presenting the news, it's his view of nature. One could easily argue he an others shouldn't mention how nature evolved because it is "an opinion".

That reminded me of some of the reactions at the time to his original Life On Earth series (effectively about the evolution of Life On Earth).

(At least some I remember were very peculiar)

[scotview]

He has a lifelong perspective on a subject he specialises in.
Arb

I have a personal life long perspective on the demise of the atlantic salmon, the pelagic move North, the disappearance of the North Sea stickleback, the reduced numbers of lapwing, the breeding failure of terns in the UK and many more, but I am not afforded the luxury of being paid to expound my thoughts on these on national TV.

Give us a true nature programme with wonderful video footage and a quite separate climate change series. These are for two completely different audiences.

I'm just using this as an example of providing a service to mandated subscribers.

[XFool]

He has a lifelong perspective on a subject he specialises in.

I have a personal life long perspective on the demise of the atlantic salmon, the pelagic move North, the disappearance of the North Sea stickleback, the reduced numbers of lapwing, the breeding failure of terns in the UK and many more, but I am not afforded the luxury of being paid to expound my thoughts on these on national TV.

Have you ever made a pitch to the BBC?

Give us a true nature programme with wonderful video footage and a quite separate climate change series. These are for two completely different audiences.

On the one hand I see your point. On the other hand - why should they be for "two completely different audiences"? They are in practice two intimately related topics.

[Lootman]

He has a lifelong perspective on a subject he specialises in.

I have a personal life long perspective on the demise of the atlantic salmon, the pelagic move North, the disappearance of the North Sea stickleback, the reduced numbers of lapwing, the breeding failure of terns in the UK and many more, but I am not afforded the luxury of being paid to expound my thoughts on these on national TV.

Give us a true nature programme with wonderful video footage and a quite separate climate change series. These are for two completely different audiences.

I'm just using this as an example of providing a service to mandated subscribers.

Yep although it irks me even more when the media gives a voice to sports and music celebrities, and their inevitably shallow political views.

Apparently the US presidential election could be swayed by Taylor Swift endorsing Biden or Trump. How depressing is that?

[Midsmartin]

For decades the BBC ignored the science behind climate change and other forms of environmental degradation. To make a film about organisms in their natural environment without discussing this would be wrong. I agree it's much more enjoyable, more fun, without that message, but it's also pretending that all is well with the world, presenting a sanitised gift wrapped version that is not true to reality.

One of the big gripes with the BBC was that they tried to be too impartial. For decades, whenever good climate science was discussed, in the name of balance, some nutter was called on to object. I'm surprised they didn't interview a flat earther for balance whenever a round the world yacht race was discussed.

[Arborbridge]

Amazing how the BBC gets people going. Maybe it's because it is so important to us, and love or hate it. we all appreciate the need for just a great institution.

We are so lucky compared with other countries, to have such a thing.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

I have a personal life long perspective on the demise of the atlantic salmon, the pelagic move North, the disappearance of the North Sea stickleback, the reduced numbers of lapwing, the breeding failure of terns in the UK and many more, but I am not afforded the luxury of being paid to expound my thoughts on these on national TV.

Give us a true nature programme with wonderful video footage and a quite separate climate change series. These are for two completely different audiences.

I'm just using this as an example of providing a service to mandated subscribers.

Yep although it irks me even more when the media gives a voice to sports and music celebrities, and their inevitably shallow political views.

Apparently the US presidential election could be swayed by Taylor Swift endorsing Biden or Trump. How depressing is that?

There you go again. "political" is just an easy slur to make you feel justified to ride your hobby horse. You can't compare Attenborough - who is an expert of great experience commenting on something he knows about, with those others you mention. In fact, the only thing which links them together is that you have defined them as making "political" commentaries. It's false construction of your own. Attenborough is presenting facts: it is you who is converting those facts into a political dimension.

You could define someone presenting the facts about global climate change for example, as being political. You thinking that way isn't going to change the facts. No, what's political is what others decide to do about it. Scientists can only present and advise.

Arb.

Arb.

[Redmires]

Isn't it about competition? The BBC was great when there was no competition. As a kid our first TV was the size of a fridge, black and white, and only got one channel - BBC. (Not BBC1 because there was no BBC2 then; ITV came along the next year).
Now there are a million channels and streaming. My kids have TVs but no terrestrial TV - they do not need it. And for news you have ITV. C4, CNN, Fox, Al Jezeera and so on.

Exactly. There is competition. So why does anyone on here bother to complain about the BBC. Do.Not.Buy.A.Licence. There seems to be a thousand different ways of receiving your entertainment without needing to buy a licence. So why put yourselves through the misery? Or are anti-BBC'ers happy to buy a licence just so they can be offended by it ?

[Arborbridge]

He has a lifelong perspective on a subject he specialises in.
Arb

I have a personal life long perspective on the demise of the atlantic salmon, the pelagic move North, the disappearance of the North Sea stickleback, the reduced numbers of lapwing, the breeding failure of terns in the UK and many more, but I am not afforded the luxury of being paid to expound my thoughts on these on national TV.

Give us a true nature programme with wonderful video footage and a quite separate climate change series. These are for two completely different audiences.

I'm just using this as an example of providing a service to mandated subscribers.

Maybe you aren't a broadcaster? That's why you haven't made a program - but you could write a book, publish articles. We can't all have lived the life that would give us the experience and contacts to do the things we like: that's just the way the cooky crumbles. Get out and do it - don't just grumble and resent others for having done so. It wasn't a "luxury" - it is what he does for a living: you don't - tough, get used to it.

Life's a mixture of chance, motivation and skill. I don't worry about the many people I might have been, or give way to envy towards others who have succeeded where I haven't.


Arb.

[nimnarb]

I have a personal life long perspective on the demise of the atlantic salmon, the pelagic move North, the disappearance of the North Sea stickleback, the reduced numbers of lapwing, the breeding failure of terns in the UK and many more, but I am not afforded the luxury of being paid to expound my thoughts on these on national TV.

Give us a true nature programme with wonderful video footage and a quite separate climate change series. These are for two completely different audiences.

I'm just using this as an example of providing a service to mandated subscribers.

Maybe you aren't a broadcaster? That's why you haven't made a program - but you could write a book, publish articles. We can't all have lived the life that would give us the experience and contacts to do the things we like: that's just the way the cooky crumbles. Get out and do it - don't just grumble and resent others for having done so. It wasn't a "luxury" - it is what he does for a living: you don't - tough, get used to it.

Life's a mixture of chance, motivation and skill. I don't worry about the many people I might have been, or give way to envy towards others who have succeeded where I haven't.


Arb.

[scotview]

Exactly. There is competition. So why does anyone on here bother to complain about the BBC. Do.Not.Buy.A.Licence.

I need a License to allow me to switch on my SkyQ box legally.

Anyway, I've said my piece and tried to make my point, albeit in a clumsy manner, so now I'll shut up.

[Dicky99]

I think the BBC is good value for radio 4 alone.
The TV is all an extra bonus. The government is pushing the BBC into a death spiral: funding cuts mean worse quality. Fewer people watch, and it's worse, so let's cut their funding some more.

What they are good at and should do more of is programming that doesn't assume you're an idiot. Anything sciency on TV is dumbed down in a way that, so far, it is not on the radio. In fact most TV science coverage has disappeared. The news coverage is getting worse. They no longer have staff to do quality investigative journalism, and dare not offend the government.

But as I read today that the owner of GB news wants to buy more media outlets, it's more important than ever to retain an island of attempted impartiality and sanity.

"Dare not offend the government". Really?
I thought one of the factors behind the demise of the BBC is that whilst maintaining that it's news service is impartial, it has adopted a remit to continually undermine the government.
A lesson for a incoming Labour government to lob some money their way in return for an easy ride