BBC Scotland have another cowardly dig

[Super_Ally 0]

As example of an high quality, impartial hard hitting documentary produced by the BBC, shown last night for the first time - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24765480

 

They aren't above criticism however to write off the entire corporation is simply hyperbole.

 

Based on the lies and bullshit they came out with about the old firm on panorama a few years ago I'd do a lot of research before believing anything in that documentary.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

NYPD Blue began in 1993, The Sopranos in 99 and even The Wire was over a decade ago.

The age isn't really the issue, it's the quality of shows like that; quality the BBC couldn't even dream of despite being funded with billions of pounds

 

Look, nobody has a monopoly on making good or bad programmes. I agree about the quality of some of HBO's productions but at the same time they don't make anything my mother or my children would enjoy, the BBC do.

 

Sums the BBC up perfectly; TV for people whose minds are not yet formed and for those whose minds are starting to go. Just kidding mate, I'm sure your mum is as sharp as an Oxford Don's letter opener.

 

Programmes made by the BBC in the last 12 months that are generally considered international quality include -

Dr Who

Sherlock

Luther

Call The Midwife

Have I Got News For You

QI

Episodes

Out Numbered

Top Gear

Who Do You Think You Are

The Story of The Jews

Africa

 

Dude, that list is international quality the way Barry Ferguson is "World Class" .

[calscot 0]

Based on the lies and bullshit they came out with about the old firm on panorama a few years ago I'd do a lot of research before believing anything in that documentary.

 

That was a terrible programme which twisted things and used ignorance to fan the flames of sectarianism and light a few more fires. You can always tell the quality of a documentary when they do a programme on something you know about. And in this case they looked like either idiots or shit stirrers.

 

I've seen lots of BBC documentaries where I think I'm learning something, then they do one on a subject I'm knowledgeable about and I start getting frustrated at the inaccuracies and bullshit.

 

I must admit if I stopped watching the BBC altogether, I'd miss Top Gear but as they only make about 6 episodes a year and then put on about 30 repeats, it's not much different from watching Dave.

 

As it is I don't watch it much except for TG and Big Bang theory. I also like Family Guy and American Dad but again they are usually repeats and I have less time for that these days when I have a whole load of unwatched stuff on Netflix.

 

And there is the crux, my telly watching is now about 90% Netflix and I'm paying £6 a month for that with absolutely no adverts or on screen interference to my programmes. For the BBC I'm paying about twice that and hardly watching it nor listening to the radio stations. I also avoid their news site as I have no trust in it due to the reporting on Rangers.

 

So if I wasn't watching Netflix, I'd cancel it. If they were spouting anti-Rangers propaganda then I'd definitely cancel it even if I was watching it more.

 

I'd really love to cancel the BBC - it may not all be bad but a compulsory fee organisation that abuses its position in any way is not fit for purpose. They walk a very fine line and have way overstepped the mark. The fact that complaints go nowhere and are treated with disdain is pretty criminal. And on the odd occasion the complaint is sustained, the ruling is just treated with contempt and the abuse continues unabated.

 

When an old dishwasher is mostly working fine except it doesn't clean half your dishes properly and you can't seem to fix it, it's time to get rid no matter how good condition it's mostly in. Well that's what I'm doing, the new one's coming next week. If only I could do the same with something that is more expensive in the long run...

[Super_Ally 0]

That was a terrible programme which twisted things and used ignorance to fan the flames of sectarianism and light a few more fires. You can always tell the quality of a documentary when they do a programme on something you know about. And in this case they looked like either idiots or shit stirrers.

 

I've seen lots of BBC documentaries where I think I'm learning something, then they do one on a subject I'm knowledgeable about and I start getting frustrated at the inaccuracies and bullshit.

 

Yep, that's my point.

 

Before I may have believed the BBCs quality and impartiality but watching a show where I knew the subject material called their integrity and supposed quality into doubt.

[amms 0]

The age isn't really the issue, it's the quality of shows like that; quality the BBC couldn't even dream of despite being funded with billions of pounds

 

Well if you're going to criticise the BBC's current output by comparing it to programmes made in the previous century then it is the issue. Also if you are going to criticise the BBC for not making NYPD Blue, The Sopranos and The Wire then you need to criticise every other TV station and production company in the world too. I'm not sure the BBC should be making gritty dramas based in post industrial America though. It's a bit like criticising Brazil for not capping Messi.

 

Sums the BBC up perfectly; TV for people whose minds are not yet formed and for those whose minds are starting to go. Just kidding mate, I'm sure your mum is as sharp as an Oxford Don's letter opener.

 

If the BBC's remit was to only produce drama aimed at middle aged men then you might have point!

 

Dude, that list is international quality the way Barry Ferguson is "World Class" .

 

Ah well, there's none so blind as those who will not see ;-)

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Well if you're going to criticise the BBC's current output by comparing it to programmes made in the previous century then it is the issue.

 

No it is not. The issue is that the BBC, despite being funded with wealth unimaginable for most other organisations has failed to produce TV of the standards being produced by commercial companies, such as HBO. The fact that the programmes I cited are in some cases 10-20 years old is, in fact, a further condemnation of the BBC for failing to produce anything that reaches even those 'old' standards.

 

Also if you are going to criticise the BBC for not making NYPD Blue, The Sopranos and The Wire then you need to criticise every other TV station and production company in the world too. I'm not sure the BBC should be making gritty dramas based in post industrial America though. It's a bit like criticising Brazil for not capping Messi.

 

Now, you're being silly. The point, as you understand perfectly, is not the genre, it is the quality of those programmes. Furthermore, every other TV station and production company does not receive billions of pounds of free revenue every year. The average TV or production company can be excused for producing shit, since they are aiming at mass appeal to pay the rent. The BBC is under no such commercial pressure. It could and should be making programmes of the best quality at all times. It has no excuse not to be doing so.

 

If the BBC's remit was to only produce drama aimed at middle aged men then you might have point!

 

Ouch. You bitch!

Bowl of milk and some catnip for my friend amms please!

[amms 0]

No it is not. The issue is that the BBC, despite being funded with wealth unimaginable for most other organisations has failed to produce TV of the standards being produced by commercial companies, such as HBO. The fact that the programmes I cited are in some cases 10-20 years old is, in fact, a further condemnation of the BBC for failing to produce anything that reaches even those 'old' standards.

 

Are you seriously arguing that the BBC haven't produced programmes of the quality and standards that match those of even a select number of commercial stations in the last 20 years?

 

Now, you're being silly. The point, as you understand perfectly, is not the genre, it is the quality of those programmes. Furthermore, every other TV station and production company does not receive billions of pounds of free revenue every year. The average TV or production company can be excused for producing shit, since they are aiming at mass appeal to pay the rent. The BBC is under no such commercial pressure. It could and should be making programmes of the best quality at all times. It has no excuse not to be doing so.

 

Well, if it's not the genre it's the quality then the BBC are in a league of their own in Natural History for example. The Life series, The Blue Planet and The Frozen Planet rival anything ever made in the history of television.

 

Ouch. You bitch!

Bowl of milk and some catnip for my friend amms please!

 

Purrrrrrrrrr.

 

Look, for the record I don't believe the BBC are beyond reproach, close to perfect or couldn't do better. I also believe their coverage of Rangers in recent years leaves a lot to be desired. However to allow that to cloud our view of the entire corporation is akin to the entire Rangers support being described as neanderthals because a small minority behave badly.

[andy steel 0]

None of yer pish, AMMS.

 

Thou defendedest ye BBC, even only a bit. Burn the Witch!!!!

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Are you seriously arguing that the BBC haven't produced programmes of the quality and standards that match those of even a select number of commercial stations in the last 20 years?

 

I am arguing that very thing and seriously; man, I'm almost frowning.

What has the BBC ever produced that can match The Sopranos, The Wire or Deadwood - despite having no commercial pressures and so able to take creative and artistic risks? What, seriously, was the last innovative, ground breaking thing the BBC produced? Fawlty Towers?

 

Well, if it's not the genre it's the quality then the BBC are in a league of their own in Natural History for example. The Life series, The Blue Planet and The Frozen Planet rival anything ever made in the history of television.

 

No disagreement from me there. And that is the quality level that we have every right to demand across the entire network, not just the Natural History department. But we've headed off into the long grass here; my original response was about their documentaries (news and CA rather than nature) which lead into a debate on their drama production.

 

Look, for the record I don't believe the BBC are beyond reproach, close to perfect or couldn't do better. I also believe their coverage of Rangers in recent years leaves a lot to be desired. However to allow that to cloud our view of the entire corporation is akin to the entire Rangers support being described as neanderthals because a small minority behave badly.

 

BBC Scotland's amateurish behaviour towards Rangers plays no part in my regard of that organisation. My view of the BBC (news, editorial and CA ) was clouded -or should I say enlightened- long before last year. It has become an organisation, largely of dishonest, corrupt, talentless, uninspired, bureaucrats who are terrified of creativity and innovation almost as much as they are of their political masters.

 

If you ever have a spare 20mins on your hands, I can strongly recommend having a poke about here: http://www.glasgowmediagroup.org. They have done more than anyone to catalogue BBC (and other media) bias.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

None of yer pish, AMMS.

 

Thou defendedest ye BBC, even only a bit. Burn the Witch!!!!

 

Shut it! You're next!