Yahoo, Shazam Executives to Advise on BBC Future - Hollywood Reporter - The Hollywood Reporter
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/y ... bbc-808264

So, that's the former CEOs of two rival broadcasters, one of them now doing so well for, er, Yahoo.

Murdoch owns the Shine Group and it's CEO, then you've got the rep from the Banking Standards Board ('Promoting high standards of competence and ethics across the UK Banking Industry'. Really) and former chair of Ofcom which Cameron wanted to do away with. Alongside is the CEO of the Arts Council which the Tories have did their best to level.

There's a nod to diversity to tick that box, but the only person with any actual legitimate business being there is a former BBC director. And even he works for the dying print press.

It's like asking Russell Brand to look after a bunch of sixth form girls.

BBC Defends Right to Make Shows for "Everyone," Touts Cost Cuts in Annual Report - Hollywood Reporter - The Hollywood Reporter
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/b ... ows-808494

I hate it, but reality TV is the logical extension of where the country is at, dear love us. The public watch 'reality TV' because actual reality's just a bit too real, so they want the synthetic or just plain made up version. That's how the politicians pushing this BS get away with it too... And speaking of which, it's just the Tories doing their friends a favour at Sky. Because with all it's money, it still has to import quality when it comes to drama etc. The Conservatives would sell the BBC if they thought they'd get away with it. And frankly, the wider public are retarded enough for it to be an option in the future.

Whether the BBC should make 'populist' programmes is an interesting question which, I think, is one of those that there is no definitive answer to. I just know the current administration will make a decision much, much less based around what is best for the majority of the population and much,much more around what certain people who back them want.

When Sky start to make the volume of original TV that the BBC makes, instead of importing it from the USA, then they can have a voice. Right now, even if you don't watch Sky and you have a cable deal, you are paying for it, and no option to opt out either. Just as bad as the license fee, really, if not worse. And they carry adverts too.

I think there's a decent argument for the BBC making a broad range of programs just to act as competition, in quality terms at least, for the likes of Sky, ITV et al

Totally. The problem is the BBC's success is the very stick the Tories wanna beat it with, and the Beeb will have to take it because the alternative means not selling Top Gear, Sherlock etc around the world. It's complete hypocrisy from the party that has always talked of competition, letting the market regulate itself, a light touch... That all seems to especially apply to Team Murdoch.

I do have to ask what programmes Sky make in this country that compete with BBC output. What is the programme that's so must watch the people will turn the telly over to watch it. There isn't one. If there was, we'd know about it.

It seems to be pretty much American derived fodder, sport and movies - some of which attract extra fees.

There is nothing there that you can say that the BBC needs to compete with. If anything, the BBC should be held as the shining example of programming, and Sky gets beaten with the sh!tty stick for not meeting those standards.

The free marketeers will simply reply that the massive advantage the BBC's guaranteed income gives it means that the likes of Sky can't complete on the same field, and do so by acquiring content from other places (which is generally cheaper than making it yourself as the cost is amortised over many markets) and paying for exclusive rights to things like football which there is no obvious alternative for.

In reality Sky doesn't make all it's own content not because it can't be arsed (and it has commissioned very good stuff over the years), but because of the simple rule that you don't take on a strong opponent at their own game. Sky's strategy is exactly right for it : the idea it should be punished for 'not being as good a BBC as the BBC' is patently ludicrous and unfair, and I'm no particular fan of Sky.

Having several players with different basic strategies is patently the ideal for a free market. Homogeneity, provided either by the state or several almost identical private suppliers, is almost always bad for the consumer - I point you towards the domestic energy market as evidence. Removing the BBC from the equation will 'level the field' but it will in the process also make it more homogenous, which (IMO) is actually making it worse, not better.

This is the inbuilt problem free marketeers have when talking about the BBC. Yes, it distorts the market, but all players distort the market - if they didn't there wouldn't be any point to them being there. Removing the BBC doesn't actually make the market better, it just makes it.. flatter.